Sanjiva, two points I'd like to make: 1) You have stated from your first email on this topic that you'd like to introduce a dependency on Stratos. The community doesn't want to do this. It's not a business thing, we just want a minimum footprint architecture based on Tomcat and Cassandra. What has worried me over the last 24 hours is that it looked like you might be trying to stack the vote with enough people to force that issue. I apologize if I'm overreacting or misreading your intention but I didn't really see anything about what you guys were excited about other than that.
2) The code has been ASLv2 for years, even it hasn't been at Apache. No barriers to using it in your project or your company's products. Obviously, it's better if it's all at the ASF, that's why we're here. So, it's unfair for you to play the business intentions card on this. BTW, please note that I'm not talking about Stratos in my previous point as an WSO2 product, if it is one (I'm really not that familiar with your product line), I just mean the Apache Stratos project. 3) I have no disrespect for what you're doing with Stratos. It looks really good and it seems like a project I'd love to contribute to. But just like it would have been uncool if a bunch of people had joined Cassandra while it was in incubator to force it to rebase on CouchDB, it would not be cool if that was your goal here. I thought it was okay for projects to have their own directions. Usually, people join open source projects as committers after having demonstrated they have some interest in what's been done so far. I have a sinking feeling that this could all be just a big misunderstanding, but I'd also be remiss if in the interests of project transparency, I didn't call out these concerns. Thanks, Ed On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanj...@wso2.com>wrote: > I'm writing with my WSO2 hat on: > > Ed, we didn't participate in this project in Github is that it was a Github > project run by Apigee, a competitor of ours. > > When the project becomes an ASF project, it becomes an *ASF* project and > its no longer that of a particular company. We just donated one of our > products to form an ASF project (Apache Stratos - Incubating) and we don't > look at it as our project at all any more. In the proposal stage of that we > tried hard to get other people to sign up to becoming contributors (aka > initial committers) because we so absolutely *want* others to commit and > write code for it - that's *why* we brought it to ASF. We'd love to get any > and all of our competitors to joint Stratos - that means we succeeded in > achieving our objectives in bringing it to Apache. > > The reason so many (aka 3?) from WSO2 have expressed interest in this > project is (a) because we want to offer an MBaaS product and we plan to > build on this, and (b) because Stratos itself has a set of common services > which is not different from the services that this offers to Webapp > developers. We try hard to avoid re-writing code (the WSO2 stack uses > probably > 250 other open source projects) and this seems like a perfect > fit. Over time we plan to have probably 5-6 people contributing to this > project and building on it for our product as well as for Stratos (as > appropriate and as the Stratos community feels its what's right for that > project). > > Being in Apache means we WSO2 feel no risk of collaborating on this project > because its going to be (if successful) an *ASF* project owned by no single > company. > > I hope this helps you understand the WSO2 interest. > > Now with my Apache Member hat on: If your objective of coming to Apache is > not to divest control and let a full scale Apache community bloom around it > then IMO you should reconsider whether this is the right thing to do for > the business interests of Apigee. > > Sanjiva. > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ed Anuff <e...@anuff.com> wrote: > > > We definitely want participation, that's what this is all about, but I'm > a > > little bit surprised at the number of folks all from the same company > > affiliation who want to be committers that have had heretofore no > > involvement or interest in the project for it's previous 2 years of ASLv2 > > existence on GitHub. Would really like to see some code contributions to > > at least make sure there's an understanding of the architecture, but > maybe > > that's not the way the process works. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:40:19PM +0200, Lieven Govaerts wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Alex, if people want to join and add themselves as > > > > > > committers, then they can. The bar to entry for podlings > > > > > > during the initial proposal stage is "I'm interested" :) > > > > > > > > > > Is there some more background available on why the barrier is set > > this > > > > > low in the incubator? It seems unnatural to me. A large part of > > > > > incubation of course is to attract new committers, but why not let > > the > > > > > podling decide on which barrier it wants to use? > > > > > > > > I said "initial proposal stage." After accepted and it actually > becomes > > > > a podling then, of course, the podling decides how high or low that > > > > bar is. > > > > > > > > But we aren't talking about that. > > > > > > > > > > So during the "initial proposal stage" anyone who volunteers goes in > > > without having to contribute? There's no input from the perspective > > > podliing? > > > > > > -- > > > Best Regards, > > > -- Alex > > > > > > > > > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ > email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | > +1 > 650 265 8311 > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >
