On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 12:37 -0800, Matthieu Riou wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Paul Fremantle wrote: > > > > > Kelvin, NoNameProposers > > > > > > Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard > > > questions! So here I go: > > > > > > Perhaps you can explain why this effort isn't being rolled into the > > > Tuscany work. > > > > > > There are some obvious reasons why I am confused by this proposal: > > > > > > 1. Tuscany already has the objective of producing code for SDO, and > > > already has code for SDO. > > > 2. Tuscany was another proposal to the IPMC predominantly coming from > > > IBM and BEA employees. > > > 3. The BEA committers left Tuscany and created a fork elsewhere > > > 3. Tuscany has been identified as lacking diversity. > > > > > > Why will this project gain diversity when Tuscany is finding it hard? > > > This move seems designed to make it even harder for both Tuscany and > > > NNYP to get diversity by splitting the pool of potential committers > > > even more thinly. > > > > > > I did read the paragraph on the relationship to Tuscany but I'm afraid > > > I came out more confused. > > > > > > I'm sure there are more hard questions but I think that's enough to be > > > going on with. > > > > > I'll jump in on the points related to Tuscany. I don't think this new > > incubator would necessarily harm Tuscany's diversity. If it broadens the > > open source community around SDO, there will more people interested > > in SDO and they may get involved in Tuscany to improve Tuscany's SCA > > support for SDO (as well as the many other databindings that Tuscany > > SCA provides). > > > > I think it's good for this work to be done in an open community rather > > than as an in-house collaboration between vendors. I'm not sure why > > the points about the history of IBM and BEA's involvement in Tuscany > > are being raised. The facts as stated are correct, and I'm sure the > > IBM and BEA people putting forward this proposal are well aware of them. > > If they have decided that they are willing to work together on this > > project and open it to a broader community, I see this as something > > positive that should be encouraged. > > > > And what about bringing this in Tuscany instead of creating another podling? > Seems that the goals are similar enough to have a single project driving the > effort and it would probably greatly improve cross-pollination.
I haven't followed this thread at all, so I could be off-base, but surely it would need to become a podling, even if its destination were a subproject of Tuscany? Regards, Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
