On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:38:26 +1300, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 10:11 +0000, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > >> Noticed that the latest onjava.com email refers to us as Apache Commons. > > > > > > > From: "Simon Kitching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I would prefer Apache Jakarta Commons. > > > > > > This project is exclusively focused on java; it seems reasonable to > > > reflect this in the "branding". It's a shame we can't use "Apache Java > > > Commons" but I believe Sun would not allow that. > > > > I prefer Apache Commons. I don't believe there is a great amount of linkage > > between Jakarta and [EMAIL PROTECTED] anymore. > > I don't understand. Jakarta contains only Java projects; there's a very > strong linkage between jakarta.apache.org and Java.
More that Jakarta no longer means [EMAIL PROTECTED] as it used to. We've strengthened the Apache brand and confused the Jakarta brand over the last couple of years. > If you are talking about the *ancient* java.apache.org domain, I didn't > think it still existed, and I don't understand what relevant it has to > this issue. See the front page. I put a page up labelled [EMAIL PROTECTED] as an attempt to provide a directory for Java things at Apache. > > For the record, were someone to propose a Commons TLP and offer to be Chair > > I would probably now vote +1. > > (1) language-dependence > > Suppose we have a TLP called "commons", and someone then creates a > common perl or python or ... library. Do we then include that in > "commons" too, and have discussions about this module on the shared > commons email list? I don't think we would have to. Ant are not obliged to accept Nant, Logging do not have to have log4php. I think we would have to stress Java in any TLP proposal. Our common community goal is Java re-use, it's not re-use in general. > It seems to me that a "commons" TLP would need to be an umbrella project > for multiple language-specific commons, eg commons-java, commons-c++, > commons-perl. I guess this would be possible, but in this case do we > really gain anything by the move? We'd lose a lot. Community torpedo. > (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) Interestingly, I agree completely but think that being a TLP would help to make this more obvious. > 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, With the exception of Tomcat, I would claim that our biggest projects have moved to TLP. > 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 presume that if commons becomes a TLP then a new PMC would be formed > for commons only. In that case, issues with specific commons projects > (such as lack of maintainers) may not produce as much enthusiasm to fix > them because the commons-pmc may not include representatives of the > major projects using the commons libs. And the major users of the libs > (eg tomcat) may not be members of [EMAIL PROTECTED] and therefore > not have the authority to fix things when they need/want to. > > I hope that makes sense. Yeah it does, but it's a couple of years out of date. > (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. -1. Let them come up with their own name. :) Projects are about community, and we're not a community who focus on 're-use' as an abstract concept. Also, many other languages already have their own re-use structures. Perl's CPAN being the leading example. A handful of our projects could conceivably exist as .Net modules, Digester is the one that jumps to mind as it has non-language specific parts (the xml file and the rules). > * 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. > * ??? Things to be gained at TLP: Less bandwidth needed for board<->project communication, which improves oversight. Simpler branding, ie) Apache Commons. A more solid hold on the 're-usable Java at Apache' concept. We'd serve all of Apache, not just whomever happens to be in Jakarta. -- I must confess that the original email was not meant to push this discussion :) I talked to the PR committee a short while back about brands and they agreed that all projects and subprojects exist within the same brand space, that is that we can quite happily call ourselves Apache Commons while living in Jakarta. This has an advantage that we won't end up with brand confusion as happened when commons.apache.org was launched, but a disadvantage that people might find it harder to find us. Given that we're branded as Commons now, I'm not sure if that would change anyway, but it does seem likely. Btw, google for 'Commons', only creativecommons.org have stronger Commons Internet branding than we do. Being British, I love who we beat into 3rd place :) Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
