Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being
able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
Incubator.
There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
fair to the AMQ community?
If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
as a sub-project
I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
have binding votes?
This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ
and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
ready to vote, imho.
Regards,
Alan
