On 21 Dec 2004, at 15:05, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 10:31 PM 12/20/2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:
IIRC we're never really gone for official consultations here at apache (or at least the bits i've been involved with): too much committee, too little community. i alerted ceki (who i've know and respected for too many years even though we don't always agree) soon after i discovered this thread and hoped that other interested folks from the logging project.
jakarta commons has a slightly different focus and expertise. we're more interested in bricks (small, compact reusable components with minimal dependencies) than logging systems. the extensions proposed by richard would allow components with enhanced logging requirements (such as i18nable messages) to be added to the commons.
so, in many ways it doesn't matter whether existing logging systems offer these capabilities or not: what matters is whether there is a need for this kind of enhanced logging for the kind of bricks built by the jakarta commons. it's good people that logging experts have shown up to the party but (so long as a need for this exists), the party would have happened anyway.
Official consultations at Apache might be a drag, but the last time I checked, Jakarta Commons was part of the Apache Software Foundation. It might not be a concern to this group, but keep in mind that the ASF frowns upon mission-creep.
now it's getting political :(
in many ways, i'd prefer to take your original advice and keep things technical: scope can be considered later. not a single line of code has been committed and no binding decisions have been taken. i agree with noel that we should address the technical issues first.
(i'm now probably going to start preaching to the gallery since you're probably already well aware of my views. those who are uninterested in politics should stop reading now.)
i'm very aware (maybe more than most) that the ASF has been frowning very strongly at jakarta (in general) and commons (in particular) for several years. we are very vunerable (both jakarta and commons) because we have (proportionally) very few members and so very few advocates at the ASF level but this awareness has also produced some strengths: we are very aware of issues of scope and aware that we are under scrutiny from the board and members. we have no voice and so the only way we can demonstrate that the commons is worthwhile is by our actions. we take scope seriously (many would argue: too seriously). we take our legal duties very seriously. so far, we've managed this whilst retaining a sense of community. i feel this is an achievement.
though at some times it feels like we committers are becoming second class citizens in the ASF community, the board (whatever some people say) has proved time and again that it still believes in communities and committers. here in the commons, we have a healthy community and that matters. so, all things being equal, having the disapproval of the logging project really isn't something that worries me at all providing that the decisions taken are right ones for the community.
community is the primary measure against which scope should be judged. JCL deals with the particular logging needs of bricks. it is therefore in scope for both the jakarta commons (which deals with bricks) and the logging project (which deals with logging). the community is here which is why JCL elected to stay. IIRC there were no questions raise by members or the board about the decision of the community on this matter.
No doubt that your party would have happened without the participation of LS. Unfortunately, LS often gets stuck cleaning up after your party ends.
matters of scope are less important than matters of community. if strong community backing emerges then the scope issues can easily be solved. if no community emerges then matters of scope will become irrelevant.
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
