On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation.Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire.
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
On 30.11.2005, at 21:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles. Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has some constraints -- does anyone know what they are? I think we need to reorganize around federations, but that's a very long discussion that I have no time for right now. We certainly don't need more than one WS/SOA federation. Please make the proposal specific to a single, technical product line that has objective criteria against which you can make basic decisions about what to release and when it is ready to release. That way we aren't just sponsoring a bunch of individuals, each working on their own solo project within an opaque mist of vague relationships.
So why don't you get involved instead or vote against their graduation if you so desire?
Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive IMHO...
Cheers, Erik
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
