Sorry for this lengthy response, but I got a negative vibe from several reactions to this thread and I feel a need to vent my concerns.
First I am a big fan of Apache and the Apache community. I think that the way Apache works is a great example of how a community effort can produce great software. I think that the Wicket community is well on its way to work in a similar fashion and would be a great addition to the healthy community found at the ASF. I see several projects inside ASF already working with Wicket and we always have shown interest in working with Apache projects or using them. I saw a quote on the Wicket mailing list stating that 'SF.net is a repository of open source projects and Apache is a community of people working on open source projects' (sorry if I didn't quote this correctly). This means IMO that PEOPLE are more important than PROCESS. When Wicket is incubated, I fully intend to include as much people from our community as possible. Someone suggested to fork the Wicket project into two: one at ASF for Wicket 2.x and one at our current location (sf.net) for Wicket 1.x. A forked community parted between 1.x and 2.x would be a disservice to the Wicket community and I seriously frown upon such a suggestion. This gives a message to those that they are not considered 'worthy' of Apache. If the ASF is really concerned with building an open source community, then the ASF should be working very hard to include everyone. The knife cuts both ways: the Wicket community has to bite through some hard bits, but so does the ASF imo. For us the hard bits will be the loss of our total freedom to do whatever we want with our framework (for instance, the possibility to incorporate any (L)GPL code in our product), a (somewhat) more bureaucratic way of working, and having to go through the incubation process which is uncertain and will slow down the project. I am willing to bite through these bitter parts and join the ASF, but only if ASF *also* is willing to accept some of Wicket's quirks. One of those is to be able to build releases for our community, and make them available at a convenient place with enough bandwidth and with the quality people expect. Another is not having to rename all packages (in our 1.x branch) to org.apache.wicket. Though this is a trivial thing to do, we strive to keep API changes to a minimum between 1.y releases. Renaming *all* packages doesn't add value for our users and only creates a major inconvenience for them. Note that I don't have any problem with renaming the packages for our 2.x branch to org.apache.wicket. Martijn -- Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! Embed Wicket components in your portals! -- http://wicketframework.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
