On Nov 27, 2007 11:22 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It may be nothing more than a matter of perception and nothing more, but I > think externally-hosted projects will automatically have a connotation of > not being "golden" as you say, no matter what else is done to say > otherwise, as I believe happened with the Sourceforge-hosted items. I may > be wrong, but that's what I believe to be the case.
Not all ASF projects are "golden", and there are many "golden" projects that have not joined the ASF. Though, quite a few ASF projects are popular; certainly more than the average open-source startup. One reason is probably the ASF project management style, or the "Apache Way". One effect of the Apache Way is that it tends to favor a conservative approach. We need multiple people to agree to an implementation, or at least agree to a release, and forging that agreement can work against innovation. To help promote innovation at the ASF, we even started an Apache Labs project, so that ASF committers could experiment with new code before proposing an actual project. But, the Apache Labs are only open to committers, and sometimes, we want to collaborate on a codebase with someone who isn't a committer (at least, not yet). An important aspect of an external project is that it makes it easier for Struts committers to work with other volunteers, without fussing with the ASF brouhaha. The Apache Way is a great way to manage a mature stable project, but it is not a great way to experiment with new plugins. As an Struts PMC member, I am *very* concerned about plugin proliferation in the standard distribution, mainly because the kids need shoes, and we don't have enough volunteer hours to apply all the patches that people already submit. I would like to encourage a plugin commuity, and a shared external project seemed like one way to do that. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
