Simon Kitching wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 10:11 +0000, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
For the record, were someone to propose a Commons TLP and offer to be Chair
I would probably now vote +1.
(2) maintainer numbers and PMC membership
I've been rather concerned recently by the number of jakarta-commons
projects whose pool of active maintainers has shrunk to 1 or even zero.
This includes:
* digester (I'm the only one who does anything anymore)
* beanutils (see my recent post)
* daemon (a patch posting to the dev list re daemon
received no replies at all)
* betwixt (Robert Donkin is the only person who does any work on this
AFAIK, despite their being plenty to work on)
However it is some comfort to know that the pmc for the whole of jakarta
typically contains the major developers for the big jakarta projects,
which are users of many commons libs. So problems raised to the commons
pmc also gets through to the major *users* of commons projects, because
there is only one pmc. Those who *use* the libs therefore have both the
power and the responsibility for resolving the issue, which is how I
think things should be.
I think this is the most important point in keeping Jakarta Commons in
Jakarta. Specifically, the Commons is an umbrella for smaller or more
generic packages used by the Jakarta TLP for its various tools. It is a
"sub-community" of Jakarta. IMHO, it would be best served to remain
that. If there is interest in "higher level" organization, then this
should be of the same "internal" structure. The packages in "Apache
Commons" would need to be across all Apache Projects and its PMC
comprised of all those TLP member using the packages. IMHO this spreads
things out way too thin. I know theres a tendency to want to follow a
trend (jakarta commons, xml commons, perl commons) and I know that there
also a tendency to want to consolidate projects with attributes in
common. But, think of "Commons" as more of a "Class" of project, not an
entity in its own right.
(3) benefits?
What are the benefits of going to a TLP?
* I guess we do then provide a home for non-java "commons" projects,
which don't have any home at the moment as far as I am aware.
Not impressed, the "Commons" approach has served well inside other
TLP's. If the model is well adapted, then other communities will form
their own "Commons".
* It might help people find apache's "common library" collection
easier. But then again, the Jakarta "brand name" is reasonably
well known now so we lost that.
* ???
Cheers,
Simon
I thought awhile back that "Apache Commons" was going to migrate towards
being more of a "Directory", "Listing" or "Catalog" of common libraries.
Not really a TLP containing its own code. This seems logical, then you
can always "find" a package in these sub-projects if it were
"registered" with the Apache Commons Directory. We could think of it as
more of a Virtual Community?
-Mark Diggory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
