Folks,
I see Niall, Leo, Jeremy, Robert, Bill and Guillaume respond to concerns from Jim and Niclas. It would be invaluable if
any incubator PMC members with concerns (or without!) could help us as mentors during the incubation process.
Here's the list of votes so far (see below). Noel, can you please chime in with your VOTE? I am hoping that other
incubator PMC members who have not VOTE'd would cast their ballot as well
thanks,
dims
Davanum Srinivas +1
Craig L Russell +1
Ant Elder +1
Daniel Kulp +1
Matthias Wessendorf +1
Kevan Miller +1
James Strachan +1
Guillaume Nodet +1
Alan D. Cabrera +1
Luciano Resende +1
Carsten Ziegeler +1
Bill Stoddard +1
Niklas Gustavsson +1
Jim Jagielski -1
Niall Pemberton +1
Donald Woods +1
Joe Bohn +1
Daniel S. Haischt +1
Niclas Hedhman -1
Ralph Goers +1
Leo Simons +1
Robert Burrell Donkin +1
On 09/18/2009 04:50 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman<nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Bill Stoddard<wgstodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am having a really difficult time getting my head around Jim and Niclas'
objections that this is an umbrella project.
I think Jim came up with a good lithmus test; "If it is unclear what
should NOT go into a project..."
So, when I read the proposal the second time, my interpretation is
that there is no actual boundary, other than perhaps "OSGi". If it was
"only specs", then I would support Richard's notion that the community
should work towards Felix sub-project (which was a sore point), but
the scope is "enterprise OSGi", which is just about as wide as it
gets. Perhaps the group as such has much better ideas on what they
mean, fair enough, but then *I* would like to see it in the proposal.
After all, it is very common around here that the proposal will become
the basis for the project charter (if any), so *I* think it is better
to address this early (and often ;-) )...
it is not conventional here to insist on a set exit strategy before a
proposal is approved. perhaps this innovation is one that should be
considered but IMHO it's not really workable to do that this late in
the acceptance process.
targeting an exit as a felix sub-project would require the aries
proposes to start again with approval from the felix proposal and so
on. it may also prove controversial.
i would also be worried about settling on exit as a felix sub-project
now. i'm a big felix fan and think it runs very well. but i think
there's a limit on how far it can scale without loosing it's
cohesiveness as a community. i would like see felix continue to act as
a home for cross cut OSGi components factored out of existing apache
codebases.
if there are going to be a large number of new OSGi specs with a
distinctive "enterprise" identity (whatever that means) then i worry
that the felix project may find themselves flooded and lose direction.
i also worry that if no distinctive identity develops for "enterprise"
specifications then aries is going to have scope issues. i'm not sure
that this can be resolved right now: the specification process doesn't
seem mature enough yet. but i don't see this as a reason to tell aries
to come back later. code and community first.
i would expect that the project reports include detail on the
specifications they intend to implement and what progress has been
made towards a tight definition of "enterprise" (whether as a
distinctive group of specifications or a good description)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
