Adding velocity-dev Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > Hi, > > I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be "another > Jakarta" (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that > Jakata is always considered a bad example).
Right - the only thing that was bad about Jakarta is that we grew too fast for scalable Apache governance, and that people identified more with Jakarta than with the ASF. > > On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the > number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by > Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects > (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same > goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity) > will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP. I understand the whole history. I never understood the pressing need to push things out of Jakarta - projects were leaving on their own - but it doesn't really matter. > > I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity > and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the > new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider "Clustering" a good thing. I'd like a clearer charter. > > Having a small group of related projects available through a single > point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing. > Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects > are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta > would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow "lost" there. A > project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is > located somewhere else. > > For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net), > and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation > of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation > (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and > Click seem to be an even match. > > So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another > Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number > of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good > thing IMHO. I'm worried or I wouldn't be saying anything. geir > > Best regards > Henning > > > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote: >> On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no >>> stated deadline. >> Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month, >> and i gave the vote a full week! >> >> Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :) >> >>> I'm +1 and -1. >>> >>> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not >>> necessary, but not unreasonable. >>> >>> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's >>> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is >>> going the wrong direction. >> Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under >> your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and >> VelocityTools? :) >> >> And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but >> that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or >> for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite >> projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses >> or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon >> Velocity. >> >>> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to >>> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. >> And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether >> being here would be just about them having the foundation and >> infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If >> community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache >> organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any >> Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having >> the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project >> interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC >> member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and >> decisions. >> >>> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things >>> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) >> Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :) >> >>> geir >>> >>> >>> Nathan Bubna wrote: >>>> Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... >>>> >>>> +1 votes: >>>> Nathan Bubna >>>> Martin van den Bemt >>>> James Mitchell >>>> Henri Yandell >>>> Jorg Schaible >>>> Henning P. Schmiedehausen >>>> Will Glass-Husain >>>> Torsten Curdt >>>> Rony G. Flatscher >>>> Jesse Kuhnert >>>> Dion Gillard >>>> Daniel Rall >>>> Matthijs Lambooy >>>> Niall Pemberton >>>> Claude Brisson >>>> Malcolm Edgar >>>> Christoph Reck >>>> >>>> +0 votes: >>>> -none- >>>> >>>> -1 votes: >>>> -none- >>>> >>>> I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of >>>> those votes are binding. :) >>>> >>>> thanks, everyone! >>>> >>>> On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a >>>>> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta >>>>> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us >>>>> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the >>>>> board. So... >>>>> >>>>> The proposal is available for your perusal at: >>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity >>>>> >>>>> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following >>>>> thread: >>>>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2 >>>>> >>>>> And the vote happens here: >>>>> [ ] +1 I support the proposal >>>>> [ ] +0 I don't care >>>>> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
