[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > -----Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ----- > >> Now that the initial board discussion on the Maven resolution has >> been held, a few thoughts... > >> 1) It was made quite clear to me by a number of directors that it >> is expected that I have an interest and opinion on topics that come >> before the board. I received repeated requests not to abstain on >> this vote, but I held my ground. I believe that over the years I >> have amply demonstrated a preference to "let a thousand flowers >> bloom", but in this case my integrity was called into question in a >> way that I very much did not appreciate. >> >> 2) The question that is foremost in my mind on the Maven proposal >> is as follows: what does the ASF as a whole gain by yielding a >> specific scope and responsibility to the set of five developers >> mentioned in the proposed Maven resolution? If these people want >> to work together, they > > There are more than five members of the Maven team. Please see > http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/maven/team-list.html for a full > list of committers and contributors. There are around 30 contributors > to the effort overall. > > The ASF gains nothing new from these people, as they are mostly > existing committers. The code is (c) ASF, so they gain no code from > the proposal. The ASF would gain more assurance that the code being > created is overseen by people directly responsible and involved in > its creation, rather than the responsibility falling to the Jakarta > PMC, who I'm sure haven't got the time and energy to cover it. They > would also gain a focussed community of software developers with a > passionate group of users.
The proposed resolution is not the only organization which would achieve that goal. It might happen to be the best one, but it certainly isn't the only one.
I do believe that a number of potentially fruitful discussions about potential synergies have been shut down during this process. This troubles me.
>> can certainly do so in a number of venues, so what do they or the >> ASF benefit from doing so here? > > There are quite a few projects here (ASF) using Maven as a build > tool. Maven heavily relies on other ASF code (Ant, Jakarta's Jelly, > Jexl, Commons etc). There are obvious benefits to those projects in > Maven's continued working with them, as we have done in the past. > >> 3) A challenge to the Maven developers: what would it take to >> convert Xalan to use Maven? The reason for this challenge is >> simple: to demonstrate the the antipathy towards other ASF efforts >> is damaging not only to the ASF, but to Maven itself. > > Last things first: > > 'antipathy' == 'A strong feeling of aversion or repugnance'. > > I'm not very happy that you feel the 'Maven developers', all 30 or so > people involved in a significant way, feel this way about 'other ASF > efforts'.
I do not believe that all Maven developers feel the same way. Need I cite a few IRC logs to show that that a number of them, particularly some of those listed as the proposed PMC, do? Or at the very least, look the other way when such sentiments are expressed?
> Given the involvement of most of the proposed PMC members in other > ASF efforts I'm having trouble seeing how it is justified. I'm trying > not to take it personally.
As I have tried not to take the numerous and repeated comments that Gump sucks or is an embarrasment to the ASF personally.
> As for the challenge, I, personally, don't think that Maven needs to > 'convert' other projects to use it. Other projects should use Maven > if they feel it fits their needs. I personally don't feel that other > projects (Forrest, Gump, Centipede, Ant, Make, Nant etc) should try > to convert people. I'd rather people experimented and made up their > own mind. I'd hate for someone to force a build tool on me.
Here we strongly agree.
That's why I am concerned when I see statements to the effect that threre is no need for certain other efforts (for example, an ASF jar repository).
> That said, Xalan could quite easily start using Maven as a build or > site generation tool, but, Maven doesn't currently cover as much of > Xalan's build process as a pure java project, and hence there would > be work to determine how this would be best achieved. I see no > problem or issue there. If the Xalan team would like help I'm > offering. > >> P.S., and this is primarily to Jason: please don't try to twist any >> of this into coersion. #2 and #3 above are simply a question and a >> challenge. They are not a prerequisite for board approval, or >> even necessarily for my one vote out of nine directors on the >> subject when it comes up again. It is my belief that a number of >> efforts made by the Maven community can, will, and do benefit the >> ASF. I simply want to maximize the potential for this to occur. >> That is my interest. > > Just so I understand that last bit, you'd like to 'maximize the > potential' for the 'efforts made by the Maven community' to 'benefit > the ASF'. Right?
I certainly would like to see that. To be clear, I wouldn't pursue that to the expense of the self determination of people who have contributed to Maven. Nor to the expense of the self determination of those that wish to pursue "competing" efforts.
> -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: > http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog Work: > http://www.multitask.com.au > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
