On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul Fremantle wrote: > > > Kelvin, NoNameProposers > > > > Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard > > questions! So here I go: > > > > Perhaps you can explain why this effort isn't being rolled into the > > Tuscany work. > > > > There are some obvious reasons why I am confused by this proposal: > > > > 1. Tuscany already has the objective of producing code for SDO, and > > already has code for SDO. > > 2. Tuscany was another proposal to the IPMC predominantly coming from > > IBM and BEA employees. > > 3. The BEA committers left Tuscany and created a fork elsewhere > > 3. Tuscany has been identified as lacking diversity. > > > > Why will this project gain diversity when Tuscany is finding it hard? > > This move seems designed to make it even harder for both Tuscany and > > NNYP to get diversity by splitting the pool of potential committers > > even more thinly. > > > > I did read the paragraph on the relationship to Tuscany but I'm afraid > > I came out more confused. > > > > I'm sure there are more hard questions but I think that's enough to be > > going on with. > > > I'll jump in on the points related to Tuscany. I don't think this new > incubator would necessarily harm Tuscany's diversity. If it broadens the > open source community around SDO, there will more people interested > in SDO and they may get involved in Tuscany to improve Tuscany's SCA > support for SDO (as well as the many other databindings that Tuscany > SCA provides). > > I think it's good for this work to be done in an open community rather > than as an in-house collaboration between vendors. I'm not sure why > the points about the history of IBM and BEA's involvement in Tuscany > are being raised. The facts as stated are correct, and I'm sure the > IBM and BEA people putting forward this proposal are well aware of them. > If they have decided that they are willing to work together on this > project and open it to a broader community, I see this as something > positive that should be encouraged. >
And what about bringing this in Tuscany instead of creating another podling? Seems that the goals are similar enough to have a single project driving the effort and it would probably greatly improve cross-pollination. Cheers, Matthieu > > Simon > > > Regards, > > Paul > > > > On Jan 31, 2008 9:47 AM, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >>http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal > >> > >>That's what you get for employing reuse tactics -- gmail remembers the > >>original URL. I've been caught by this before, so I thought I had taken > >>appropriate action to avoid this behaviour, but sadly not so, apologies. > >>Kelvin > >> > >>On 31/01/2008, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>Hi all, > >>> > >>>We've posted an Apache Incubator proposal onto the incubator wiki > >>> > >>>http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal > >>> > >>>We haven't got a good name yet, SandStorm is a contender, as is > Snowdon > >>> > >>>Suggestions and comments welcome, > >>> > >>>Kelvin. > >>> > >>><http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ThriftProposal> > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
