Noel,
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community. The vision was to have a single community focused on
building a modular server architecture based on a single core. The
global deliverable would be Geronimo the J2EE server, but each of the
sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core
with one plugin installed). This is what we pitched to the external
projects and what they agreed to.
Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities
and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will
happen.
We (the communities) want to form a single community focused on this
goal, are you saying that this is not possible anymore? If this no
longer the case, I think we have an obligation to inform the
incubating communities, so they can decide if they want to continue
incubation and become an Apache TLP or go back to where they were.
-dain
On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today
I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was
changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding
Yoko that
"this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just
that:
Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at
graduation"
were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty
much the
same thing.
It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the
case that
a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a
sponsoring PMC,
it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the
Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new
projects into
the ASF.
Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of
Derby.
The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went
into DB
(although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP).
Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is
clearly the
case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an
independently
usable, separately releasable project with its own community that
happens to
have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a
number of
projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which
ought to be
separate TLPs in my view.
Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious
decision
for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The
"Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a
project
with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
