Thanks all for your comment. Fair discussion. I agree with you, just wanted to have this open discussion and share some messages I received.
Let's keep PAX as it is, at OPS4J. Thanks Regards JB On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:34 AM Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> wrote: > > I see problem similar to Achim. We still didn't hear anything about > solving a community trouble. We definitely do not solve a trouble of > ops4j community which probably do not overlap 100% with Karaf. We may be > solving some trouble for Karaf community, however we probably ask about > shifting even more work on already small set of people working on it. > We hear concerns, which might or might not be justified. I don't think > they are since there is no record of any malicious activities made by > people contributing to ops4j/pax. > People which are mainly contributing to these project are well known > (Grzegorz, JB, Achim), externals contributions are coming over pull > requests, just like they would come to the ASF, so why we should be > moving around sources? As far I remember ASF does not scan IDs of their > contributors so it can't guarantee identity of people behind > contributions as well. Back at the times I was signing my agreement I > was sending it by online fax service, so verification was very mild. > While the GPG keys is some kind of resort, a lot of people (including > myself) have self signed key which is as good as my ssh key I use to > push things to git. > > The big customers can become part of community if they wish, no matter > where project is hosted - at github or at ASF. So far it seems to me > that they are asking for favor without giving anything back to > communities which will be affected. > > Best, > Łukasz > > On 25.02.2022 08:43, Achim Nierbeck wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm sorry to be a PITA :) > > What I've read so far has been feelings, one concern of perception by "big" > > customers. > > I would really like to know, which problem we are trying to solve by moving > > the pax projects under the umbrella of Karaf. > > Or what I personally would favor under their own tlp of the ASF. > > > > Just to clarify, I'm trying the 5 W's here ... > > Why do you think it's a good idea to move the Pax Projects under the karaf > > umbrella? > > Why do you think customers have a wrong perception of the Pax Projects ... > > and so on ... > > > > > > What is the core issue we are trying to solve here? > > As long as I don't get down to the core thing that needs to be solved I'm > > not in favor of moving the pax projects anywhere. > > > > Again sorry if I'm PITA. > > > > regards, Achim > > > > > > > > Am Do., 24. Feb. 2022 um 22:44 Uhr schrieb Eric Lilja <mindcoo...@gmail.com > >> : > > > >> Personally, I would love to see this change and the other people in my > >> organization liked the proposal as well. > >> > >> - Eric L > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 3:04 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi guys, > >>> > >>> Some of you already pinged me to share concerns about PAX projects > >>> governance. I think it's my duty to share these concerns and discuss > >>> possible actions. > >>> > >>> Apache Karaf is one of the biggest consumers of PAX projects. > >>> > >>> However, PAX projects use a "self own" designed governance: > >>> - for contribution/IP > >>> - for release > >>> - for CVE/Security > >>> - ... > >>> > >>> And it could be seen as a major concern for Apache Karaf users, as PAX > >>> projects are not necessarily "aligned" with Apache Foundation rules. > >>> > >>> I would like to start a discussion on both Karaf and OPS4J communities > >>> to "move" PAX projects as Karaf subproject (like karaf-pax). > >>> Concretely, it would mean that: > >>> 1. Karaf PAX projects would use org.apache.karaf.pax namespace > >>> 2. Karaf PAX releases will have to follow the Apache release process > >>> (binding votes, 3 days vote period, ...) > >>> 3. Any active contributor on PAX projects would be invited as Karaf > >>> committer > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > -- > ------------------ > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OPS4J" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/5ff43da6-8d5f-43f4-e6e6-86af4fb162b9%40code-house.org. -- -- ------------------ OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3R_U7YGErd41FcwwSRyavz0BYzvCKH%2BA%2BAAaF2jho7Rcw%40mail.gmail.com.
