On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 20:06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanj...@opensource.lk> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> How does naming accomplish the goal of collaborative, consensus-based >> development? I thought that was why we were here. I hadn't heard that > > We force Java code to be package changed to be org.apache.*. Why do we do > that? That's a SERIOUS pain to all users but we do it - that's part of
You cannot possibly try to compare terminology to a *release artifact*. We impose rules on our releases. The majority our rules apply to those artifacts or their production. > identifying the project with the ASF. Similarly on many occasions we have > asked projects to pick a new name as part of the incubation process. We have > made exceptions for well established brands (ServiceMix & ActiveMQ were the > first I remember but there probably were others) and so we do have precedent > for that (and I *totally* agree changing the name would accomplish nothing > here). IIRC even ServiceMix and ActiveMQ changed their package names to > org.apache.*. It seems somewhere that we disconnected from some conceptual terminology into an area of product/package naming. >> people and projects had to pay a "price" to be part of the Foundation. > > There is of course a price- you can't have a BDFL (which many FOSS projects > do), you have to report to the board every month first and then every 3 > months, you have to follow a certain decision making process we call the > Apache Way etc. etc.. > > For an established project which has its own structure those are all part of > the "price" of being in the ASF. Nothin' wrong with it at all IMO: All good > things come at a price. Ah. Heh. I don't see those as a price/cost, so I still don't see what you mean. ;-) Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
