On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:12 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 5:44 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Yep. I never said that you can't, so please don't suggest I was
saying that.
But it was my impression that both TriFork people and Geronimo
people, including you, were interested in the code coming into a
SVN repository under the supervision of the Geronimo PMV, with all
those people working in that SVN
Ah so we have a misunderstanding in two directions. I am
interested in the concept of what you have written, but think the
code should go to incubator and worked on in incubator. I think
Geronimo should stick to one ACL and just have new code we want
people to be able to work on directly while being integrated to go
into incubator.
Ah. My mistake then. I was certain that you wished for something
else for TriFork. My apologies.
I guess you're not going to be happy. I think that we have
different situations here. My guess is every donation will be a
unique situation. We need to measure the situation and act
accordingly.
I don't agree. I think that having a simple set of rules is
needed for transparency and fairness. Of course, exceptions can
be made, but that should be to a well-understood and supported
policy.
To use Aarons word, I'm ok with "guidelines" or rules of thumbs,
but we measure each situation as a unique instance. Since, all
these discussions happen in the public and all are welcome to join
in, I don't think we will have a problem with a perception of
unfairness or the stink of a smoke filled room. I think rules and
precedents in this case can be very dangerous as the a large
donation can change everything overnight. If we were to accept the
wrong donation by just following the rules and precedents, it could
burn the good will that keeps this collaboration project together.
I don't think we have that risk here.
I hope no one would do that. That would be incredible damaging
to our community. How would you feel if Trifork donated their
web-service implementation? We could suck it into Geronimo and
get everyone using it. Of course that would really hurt Axis.
I think we avoid any situation that would undermine an existing
healthy open source community. If someone wants to donate
something to compete against an existing healthy Apache licensed
open source community, we can simply suggest they work with the
existing community or start a new one.
I agree. We should always encourage that. But sometimes
competition is good :
Not all competition is good. If we were to accept an webservice
implementation into Geronimo it would give it an unfair advantage.
We could permanently damage or kill an otherwise healthy project.
And why? So we can have our own X?
I think it depends on the situation, right? You can have
implementations of the same technology that are tailored for
different needs.
If the competing implementation is superior, then it should have no
problem competing without the Apache or Geronimo brands.
The ORB supports a large specification without a (healthy)
existing Apache licensed open source version. If there were an
existing apache licensed open source ORB, I would rather see
the code donated and worked into an exiting project.
Alternatively, the group donating the code could start a new
project outside Apache, and develop a healthy community of it's
own. I do not think that Geronimo should ever assist in
undermining an existing (healthy) open source project.
That's fine, but I don't think the donators wish to go this way
at first, and I think that we're happy to accommodate them.
What? That was a hypothetical situation. I wrote "If there
were an existing apache licensed open source ORB", but as I see
it there is not one, so we should a new project and community here.
No. The CORBA donation is not hypothetical, and intended to come
to the Geronimo project. For what reason do you wish to make them
go to the incubator?
Holy cow! Please read my email before responding next time. My
"note" was about a hypothetical situation, which isn't true in this
case. I was not attempting to link that "note" to a discussion
about incubator at all. Man!
I see. In the case of the CORBA donation, I thought that there was
general consensus to bring here and get started, and let natural flow
of the project determine if it should be a new project and all...
Obviously you want me to now write something about the incubator,
so I will...
What is wrong with the incubator?
Nothing.
You are acting like we banished them to the underworld to prove
themselves in fiery combat. Maybe I'm wrong, but I blieve that
this situation is exactly what incubator was designed for. We have
a large new code base and new committers for it. We can work with
them and the code in a safe helpful environment while they become
accustomed to the project and we become accustomed with them. What
is the big deal?
For what reason do you wish to make them go to incubator? I think
that Geronimo is a safe, helpful environment where they can become
accustomed to the project and we to them. That said, I'm happy to
see them go to incubator and will help there if that's what they
want. But what is different when it comes to Geronimo, right?
My POV is that the incubator serves two purposes - first to ensure
that any code contribution is properly handled, with proper oversight
of the acceptance process. (IOW, the proper software grant is
received from the copyright owner to ensure that the code is being
offered to the ASF by the copyright holder and not someone else.)
The second is, in the event that a community needs to be built around
code that is standalone, that it is done. In our case, it's my
understanding that the intent was to *not* build a standalone project
and community, but start by integrating tightly in Geronimo.
I think that's the key question to be answered. Based on that, it
should go to the proper place.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
