On Feb 2, 2008 6:47 AM, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 31, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote: > > Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard > > questions! > > Nah, it's mostly because the mail threading on this thingie was > broken a few times. It makes things hard to follow. Simon -- please > use that "reply-to" button in your mailer. > > The other immediate problem is the quality of the proposal text. If > this is to go forward, please rewrite the proposal so that it can be > readily evaluated by someone who can never remember what Tuscany is > exactly, is in denial that there's still such a thing as the JCP or > JSRs coming out of it, and has a healthy bias against fluffy java > framework stuff. > > > Perhaps you can explain why this effort isn't being rolled into the > > Tuscany work. > > So...is anyone else getting completely confused here? > > You're one of the tuscany mentors, right Paul? Could you explain what > has been happening in tuscany-land that has you so concerned? I do > vaguely remember some kind of problems back in November...what has > been happening since > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2007 > > ? >
Let me try to sum up a bit. Tuscany's goal is mostly to implement SCA, SDO and DAS as specified originally by OSOA and now by OASIS. Their incubation started in late 2005 with committers from several companies but mostly IBM and BEA. Somewhere during their development (I believe about a year ago), there's a disagreement about the directions the project is taking, mostly with respect to the SCA part, and BEA pulls off and starts a fork. Since then the project has continued and despite trying to attract new external committers, IBM is still very much in majority in the project, which has been an issue for graduation. Since November they've been trying even harder to attract people but since there are so many IBM developers, it's hard to find a balance. Now comes this new proposal, mostly concerned with SDO and mostly pushed by BEA. So from there several questions come to mind (at least to my mine). How much of this is really about Apache and how much is about an eventual political agenda? Since the NoNameYet new podling would have some diversity issues (mostly BEA) and so does Tuscany, why not uniting to benefit both communities? What makes their scope so different that they can't work together? I'm open to all answers, I'd just like to see a bit clearer. Cheers, Matthieu > > cheers, > > - Leo > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
