On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:01:58AM -0700, Scott Sanders wrote:
> > And it *does* seem like we're getting input from the J-C
> > committers (Morgan, yourself, etc). I worry more about the
> > XML Commons people; but then again, maybe there isn't an
> > active enough community to be much bothered either way.
>
> Not really an issue IMHO. Xml-commons is more for spec related code, or
> code that xerces/xalan has in common. Not much of a separate community,
> more just another cvs repo.
All righty. That makes a couple input points saying "no worries"
>...
> The perception of 'stolen' IMHO comes from j-c not being promoted out of
> jakarta and its scope expanded to include what this group is attempting
> to do. The difference is perception. Most of j-c would have said 'wow,
> ASF thinks we were a good idea', rather than the 'ASF is screwing us'
> that you have seen. Flattery and all that...
Hah! Think about what you just said:
A) the Board moves j-c out of Jakarta to become a-c
i) the Board does it autocratically
ii) after a discussion with j-c stakeholders, they say "yah!"
or
B) the Board creates a-c (and a-c, once prepped, suggests that j-c
components move into a-c)
I think A(i) would have been the worst possible approach. That leaves A(ii)
or B. Now do you think that the j-c would have actually agreed to become
a-c? I somehow doubt that :-)
Since I was there during the conversation :-), I can state that the Board
went with B because we didn't want to monkey around with a working
community. We would have had to simply move it, or cajole it into moving
(and create resentment among those in the minority). Instead, the end result
was "build it and suggest they move [and avoid mandates]".
>...
> > Nothing is excluding the existing community. I personally
> > encourage the entire Jakarta Commons communtity to participate here.
>
> Email has been sent requesting just that.
Great.
>...
> That is exactly what people are trying to say. By 'rescuing' j-c from
> the problems the board sees with jakarta's scope, jakarta's scope would
> have *decreased*, which would have been a good thing.
See above. I don't believe that would have been possible, from a social
standpoint. I mean look at the problem that the mere *existence* of a-c has
caused, let alone any mandate that j-c must become a-c.
>...
> Greg, in general I agree with everything that has happened here, I am
> just trying to explain in the least offensive way possible why some
> people do feel this way.
hehe... You've got some learning to do if you think it is possible to offend
me :-) But for starters, you'd actually have to talk about me personally,
rather than offering your own views. There is no way that I'd get offending
by somebody speaking about what they believe. And even if you went so far as
to call me a butthead or somesuch, it probably wouldn't bother me. I'd be,
"oops. wonder what I did wrong to cause that?"
> This is but one person's opinion.
Which is very valuable! Thanks.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
