Paul Querna wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Quoting from Roy's proposal:
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/labs-labs/200701.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
====
This is, essentially, a documentation project consisting of a group
of editors' sandboxes under version control. There are no releases
and most discussion, if any, will be on other organizations' lists
(aside from the chatter among the committers working on the lab itself).
A public version history is extremely important for this kind of work
in order to combat attempts to monopolize certain standards after the
ideas have been published.
=====
It's very clear, he is doing a documentation project related to
existing Apache projects, which there are several examples of working
well inside Apache.
I fail to see how documenting ideas about possible improvements to
HTTP is pertinent to Labs while documenting ideas about improvements
to version control is not. Subversion might not be an apache project,
but it's clearly a central piece of our infrastructure and its
features drive (and were driven from) a lot of our own social dynamics.
Ah, but that is the point -- If the documentation was about using our
shared infrastructure, then there already is a place for that: site-dev.
That list is responsible for managing the documentation on
infrastructure, and how we use it at:
<http://www.apache.org/dev/>
If the goal is to produce documentation on how to use git-svn for
example with the Apache SVN repository, I believe the correct place for
such a project is on site-dev, not the Labs.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Just so that I understand better where your negative vote comes from:
are you afraid that lack of code is going to generate ungrounded and
hard to resolve discussions (while in Roy's case, it was really his
own lab with his own ideas and hardly people would challenge him at
this draft stage) or is it something else I'm missing?
I do believe that documentation can be a valid project, but I also
believe that documentation related to infrastructure already has a home,
and Labs is not it.
If the Lab proposal is not about documentation, then what is it?
When you remove documentation, what is left from the original proposal, is:
"""Most importantly it would provide a neutral ground for discussing the
merits of different systems and practices. """
Which has been mentioned already by others[1] on this list as not making
sense for Labs. As I said in my first mail, I do not believe that this
is the place to have a neutral ground for discussing.
If there is another significant purpose of this proposed lab, please
tell me.
But based on the original proposal, I believe that there isn't a need
for a Lab.
I'm only slightly interested in this topic and the problem with mailing
list discussions is the threads go on forever, often rehashing the same
points in different forms. Seems to me that if a bunch of people want to
collaborate together to collect the different view points into a
coherent document or set of documents then labs is as good a place to do
this as anywhere. And hopefully they'll have the good sense to include
the views of people like Roy who don't think its a good idea.
My view of labs is that we should be looking to say yes on the whole,
rather than turn people away. Probably the main reason for vetoing a lab
would be that it would be more suited to incubator.
This proposal may not fit the ideas we expected for labs - but why not
give it a go and see how it works out? If you turn out to be right, then
its something we collectively learn for the future - 'course the
opposite is also true if its a great success.
Anyway +1 from me - just because I'm interested in watching how a
collaborative evaluation works out in practice.
Niall
Thanks,
-Paul
[1] -
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/labs-labs/200802.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
