On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman<nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote: >> On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >>> Choices are >>> >>> 1) Podling -> TLP >>> 2) Podling -> Felix Sub project >>> 3) Podling -> Felix Sub project -> TLP >>> 4) Felix Sub project >>> 5) Felix Sub project -> TLP >>> >>> So, why should we bypass incubator? > > No, AFAIK, that is not an option when a large bulk of the incoming > community is new to ASF. > >> Again, there was already a project incubated to educate incoming folks on >> how to create open source OSGi spec impls at Apache, so why do we need to >> repeat that process? >> >> Your phrasing of this question implies we are trying to somehow skirt the >> Apache way, but educating incoming people via contributions and meritocracy >> to an existing project is not some shortcut. > > Yes, if you are accepting a large number of people into a TLP on the > basis "they will create..." or "they donated...", then that PMC is > "skirting the Apache way".
Where in the above "but educating incoming people via contributions and meritocracy to an existing project is not some shortcut" do you find anything that would imply that the idea is to just accept a large number of people into a TLP? I think that we at Felix never did just vote in people on the basis "they will create...". Sometimes we do accept people new to the ASF on the basis "they donated..." but only if we are talking about individual (i.e., 1 or 2) contributors which either have been around for a while or had somebody on the PMC who did speak up for them personally. > My stance has been that if a code donation > include 1 or 2 new people, then that can be handled that way, but 9 > people on that basis will/should probably not fly. Considering the > large number of ASF members and committers on the rooster, this is > perhaps a border case, but since it is said that "not much code > exist", then I also suspect that the rooster is 'rigged' with people > in the organization that has a general interest and strong ASF > affilliation and that the non-ASFers are those who are expected to do > most of the work. That still wouldn't prevent them from contributing to other projects as you are probably well aware. > Hence, the group's decision to come to Incubator is a correct one. And nobody has been questioning that as far as I can see. The question is about the scope and goals of Aries and more specifically about the part where it is about being an umbrella for OSGi EE spec implementations where it has been argued that this could/should be done at felix while the more general part of building an enterprise component model on top of OSGi could/should very well be a new incubator project. This is different from saying that the group's decision to come to Incubator is an incorrect one... > Where it graduates to is a different story, and I can leave that > question for later. And the Felix community is encouraged to follow > and participate the Aries effort. As I'm sure at least some if not all of us will. The has never been a question either imo. The question in this regard was and is purely to what extend Felix people interested in the OSGi EE spec implementations only have to get involved in the (more general) Aries project and how quickly OSGi EE spec implementations can be released as none incubator artifacts. And one more time (just in case it was missed earlier): let me point out that nobody is talking about Aries as a Felix "incubator" project nor (at least at this point in time) about a possible subproject of Felix after graduation. We are only talking about the OSGi EE spec implementations that are part of the proposed Aries scope. regards, Karl > I think this discussion is more or less over. > > Unless it was missed earlier; My +1 for incubation. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
