On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Martin Cooper wrote: > > > On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I really shouldn't be sending multiple emails at the same time - you'll > >> all jsut end up replying to one of them. However, itching while the > itch > >> is present. > >> > >> Alexandria is dead. We need to represent it as so on the site. > > > > > > Why? You're trying to save one mouse click? It's clear as day that it's > dead > > as soon as you click on the link. > > > > ECS, ORO, Regexp are inactive development-wise - represent - site. > >> Slide, POI, Turbine, JCS seem pretty inactive - should we represent > such? > > > > > > Why do we need to do this on the front page? Each site can say whatever > it > > needs to, since, as you indicated in a subsequent message, there are > many > > different "flavours of done-ness". I think about the only person that > needs > > such a summary on one page is you, Hen. ;-) And it's just one more thing > to > > maintain that means updating the Jakarta site instead of the subproject > > site, which is backwards to me. > > I'm suggesting: > > Active Subprojects > > * Alexandria > * BCEL > * BSF > * Commons > * HiveMind > * JMeter > * Tapestry > * Velocity > > Inactive Subprojects > > * Cactus > * ECS > * JCS > * ORO > * POI > * Regexp > * Slide > * Taglibs > * Turbine
But why? If I'm a user looking for something to help me out in my development, I don't really care that much if it's active or not. What I care about is if it does the job. If there are problems with it, then I might care about whether it's active or not - or maybe I don't, since it's open source and I could fix the problems myself, if I chose to. The people who care about active versus inactive are those on the PMC, and those are not the people we should be designing the Jakarta front page for. Though it's also obvious that I want all of the Commons components, > Turbine components, Velocity components, Taglibs components and any other > hidden away sub-sub-projects to be at the same level. Alexandria itself > would just go into a trash-can - same place JServ went. > > -- > > All (90%?) of the navel gazing comes down to one binary question. Should > Jakarta be a community, or a community of communities. Are we Jakarta > committers, or ORO committers. It should be what it is. As I just wrote in another message (on commons-dev, I think), you can't make a community into something other than what it has grown into organically. I'm not tied to any of the things I'm suggesting - except the strong > belief that Jakarta as a community of communities cannot work. So I'm > definitely in favour of more shared site and less individual site - I'm in > favour of a flat Jakarta, both in terms of SVN acces and not allowing > subprojects of subprojects (ie: Jakarta Velocity-DVSL, not Jakarta > Velocity DVSL); I'm in favour of sharing the decisions - rather than > having a slice of the PMC informing the main PMC of their decision. > > Agreed - most/all of this will seem backwards if someone takes the view of > community of communities as opposed to single community. And there you have the nub of my objections to all this manipulation of communities. -- Martin Cooper Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
