I'm writing with my WSO2 hat on: Ed, we didn't participate in this project in Github is that it was a Github project run by Apigee, a competitor of ours.
When the project becomes an ASF project, it becomes an *ASF* project and its no longer that of a particular company. We just donated one of our products to form an ASF project (Apache Stratos - Incubating) and we don't look at it as our project at all any more. In the proposal stage of that we tried hard to get other people to sign up to becoming contributors (aka initial committers) because we so absolutely *want* others to commit and write code for it - that's *why* we brought it to ASF. We'd love to get any and all of our competitors to joint Stratos - that means we succeeded in achieving our objectives in bringing it to Apache. The reason so many (aka 3?) from WSO2 have expressed interest in this project is (a) because we want to offer an MBaaS product and we plan to build on this, and (b) because Stratos itself has a set of common services which is not different from the services that this offers to Webapp developers. We try hard to avoid re-writing code (the WSO2 stack uses probably > 250 other open source projects) and this seems like a perfect fit. Over time we plan to have probably 5-6 people contributing to this project and building on it for our product as well as for Stratos (as appropriate and as the Stratos community feels its what's right for that project). Being in Apache means we WSO2 feel no risk of collaborating on this project because its going to be (if successful) an *ASF* project owned by no single company. I hope this helps you understand the WSO2 interest. Now with my Apache Member hat on: If your objective of coming to Apache is not to divest control and let a full scale Apache community bloom around it then IMO you should reconsider whether this is the right thing to do for the business interests of Apigee. Sanjiva. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ed Anuff <e...@anuff.com> wrote: > We definitely want participation, that's what this is all about, but I'm a > little bit surprised at the number of folks all from the same company > affiliation who want to be committers that have had heretofore no > involvement or interest in the project for it's previous 2 years of ASLv2 > existence on GitHub. Would really like to see some code contributions to > at least make sure there's an understanding of the architecture, but maybe > that's not the way the process works. > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:40:19PM +0200, Lieven Govaerts wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Alex, if people want to join and add themselves as > > > > > committers, then they can. The bar to entry for podlings > > > > > during the initial proposal stage is "I'm interested" :) > > > > > > > > Is there some more background available on why the barrier is set > this > > > > low in the incubator? It seems unnatural to me. A large part of > > > > incubation of course is to attract new committers, but why not let > the > > > > podling decide on which barrier it wants to use? > > > > > > I said "initial proposal stage." After accepted and it actually becomes > > > a podling then, of course, the podling decides how high or low that > > > bar is. > > > > > > But we aren't talking about that. > > > > > > > So during the "initial proposal stage" anyone who volunteers goes in > > without having to contribute? There's no input from the perspective > > podliing? > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > -- Alex > > > -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 650 265 8311 blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
