At 07:00 PM 9/18/00 +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
>I am usually also deadly opposed to people including their own names into
>projects (ie rheise-os or whatever it was called) because it implies less a
>group. It is a better idea to come up with code-names.
Agreed. This particular case came about because no-one could come up with
a name. ;) And now rheise.os has really split from jos so it further
complicates the issue.
> >So far each developer has worked on there own project with little help
> >from other developers, and nobody wants to give up there project and
> >work on someone else's.
>
>One thing I noticed here is that there is faaaaar to much re-invention of
>the wheel. I saw a lot of projects mentioned that were started but never
>finished but were almost 100% identical to external projects.
Agreed again. Much of JOS was started in the hurly-burly days when java
was really going crazy. Most of the time, there were a dozen alternatives
with the same functionality and jos seemed to absorb one from each for each
major function point. The lack of focus at jos I think made the more
focused, stand-alone competitors more appealing for both developers and users.
it's high time to do the rounds and try and collaborate again though.
>Another thing to consider is making consistency across all the projects.
>Currently copyright is assigned to various people and licensing is
>different etc. It is much better to assign copyright to a non-profit
>organisation as that means if the owner of code leaves the rest of team are
>not screwed. You could look for a sponsor group if you don't want problems
>of setting up jos.org - there are a few around.
Yup. Copyright has always been a problem with JOS. I've always leaned
towards a BSD license but we could never agree on anything. Once again,
this is probably mostly a matter of biting the bullet and doing
this. There are core developers that will get pissed off and leave no
matter what decision is made though which is why the decision has never
been made.
>It may also be worth drawing up a project guidelines on how projects are
>run like http://jakarta.apache.org/guidelines/index.html.
+1
>Also another thing that I would consider important is homogenizing
>web-pages. It is damn near impossible to find anything as it is currently
>setup - and if you stumble across the page - you are not sure if it is up
>to date or obsolete or even used anymore.
+1
>Another good idea would be to standardize layout of directories in each
>project and seperate projects out into seperate well explained modules.
+1
>Personally I don't think a Wiki approach is the *right* approach - at least
>not for this. It is too damn hard to maintain, manage, navigate and
>standardize.
+1 This is slated to change as soon as I can get the time. See the mockup
at jos.sourceforge.net and send me a comment via email if you hate/like
it. The content is really poor at the moment because I was just testing
out the look and feel.
>BTW if you are standardising projects structure you may want to wait until
>end of november as I am trying to get a standard layout that all projects
>conform to defined at Apache. If that is the case then it will slowly
>trickle out - many of the other java projects rely on Apache tools and will
>gradually conform.
That's great. Can you ping the list when that's ready so we can eval it?
-iain
_______________________________________________
General maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general
