Re: anyone know the progress of the Maven top level proposal?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] yesterday asking about the updated scope but > have yet to hear a reply. interesting, since i sent a message about this to the board list a couple of hours before you sent this. i guess i forgot the appropriate ccs. attached. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" --- Begin Message --- bloody hell. can we all just calm down here, please, everybody? let's stop bristling and acting like scorched cats. jason, dIon: the charter in the resolution that went to the board was: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to Java software development, maintenance, and comprehension, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Maven PMC", be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Maven PMC be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of software related to Java software development, maintenance, and comprehension, based on software licensed to the Foundation; and be it further in the special board meeting, the board concluded that 'creation and maintenance of open-source software related to Java software development, maintenance, and comprehension' was too broad by far, encompassing rather more than just the existing maven project or even any reasonable expansion of same. so the resolution was not voted. not voted *down*, but not voted *at all*. (someone else on the board correct me if i'm misremembering.) jason, you asked and greg answered: >>> How does the resolution need to be altered? > > > Tighten up the charter. Dirk had some ideas, but it seems that he hasn't > posted some ideas for new text. yesterday you did just that, and sent: > WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in > the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with > the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management > Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of > open-source software related to Java software development tools > which are predicated on the use of Maven's Project Object Model (POM), > for distribution at no charge to the public. i think that is an appropriate narrowing of scope, though it seems a bit self-referential. so let's start from here, shall we? is the above wording satisfactory to the maven people? is it satisfactory to the board? if not in either case, let's try to constructively fix it, and leave personalities out of it. let's work *together*. and on the matter of 'well, cocoon was able to refine their charter after creation, why can't we?' the short answer is that the board doesn't want to get into a habit of having to revisit approved projects to see if they've completed the required retrofit. in other words, the cocoon scenario should be considered an exception -- and one to be rued -- and not the rule. let's get it right the first time so it doesn't have to be revisited and we can all keep moving forward. all imho. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:09, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > > WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in > > the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with > > the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management > > Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of > > open-source software related to Java software development tools > > which are predicated on the use of Maven's Project Object Model (POM), > > for distribution at no charge to the public. > > i think that is an appropriate narrowing of scope, though it > seems a bit self-referential. > > so let's start from here, shall we? is the above wording satisfactory > to the maven people? None of the developers had a problem with it. We are interested in pursuing the creation of tools based on a coherent object model for a Java-based project. > is it satisfactory to the board? if not in either > case, let's try to constructively fix it, and leave personalities out of > it. let's work *together*. Ok, all I wanted was this: some feedback on the resolution. > and on the matter of 'well, cocoon was able to refine their charter > after creation, why can't we?' the short answer is that the board > doesn't want to get into a
Re: anyone know the progress of the Maven top level proposal?
I posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] yesterday asking about the updated scope but have yet to hear a reply. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog Work: http://www.multitask.com.au -Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - To: community@apache.org From: Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 03/06/2003 05:23AM Subject: Re: anyone know the progress of the Maven top level proposal? James Strachan wrote: > Just wondered if anyone knew the boards latest view of the 'Maven as top > level project' proposal? Its been a bit quiet lately - have I missed > anything? afaik, jason, dIon, and the board are refining the charter. i think that's the only thing. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - 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]
Re: anyone know the progress of the Maven top level proposal?
James Strachan wrote: > Just wondered if anyone knew the boards latest view of the 'Maven as top > level project' proposal? Its been a bit quiet lately - have I missed > anything? afaik, jason, dIon, and the board are refining the charter. i think that's the only thing. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anyone know the progress of the Maven top level proposal?
Just wondered if anyone knew the boards latest view of the 'Maven as top level project' proposal? Its been a bit quiet lately - have I missed anything? James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RANT: Licensing, Business models and success metrics (was Re: answer to Howard or State of the POI )
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: This is going to be another one of my long answers to a short question... Good! (I crosspost to community. I think it really belongs there ;-) Some context: Howard M. Lewis Ship asked about Tapestry/POI usage: People keep asking me "how many people are using Tapestry" ... and I honestly have no idea. Insufficient feedback. Do you have a way of determining the user base of POI? Any guidelines based on downloads? Andy answers: I don't really attempt to measure this. It would be trivial to measure the number of downloads from the access logs; however, I prefer to mesure it subjectively. Note that its documented on the Jakarta site that Opensource is not about units shipped. I'd look up the page but I'm sure that if I don't someone will do it for me so why bother. Specifically in server side applications. For instance, as Andy hints in my next quote, a single download from a intranet server in a big corporation can lead to tens of thousands of (unsuspecting) users. (...big snip, not that I don't like it, but please read it in the archives) First, POI attacts mail from some of the largest banks in the word, financial institutions, governments, millitary institutions, nuclear power plants, etc. There is even a large Apache backer flirting with the idea of using it (while its irrelevant to me whether they do or not, it is relevant that they are considering it). Next, I measure the success of it by two other things: Microsoft's flirting with open file formats (I'm sure it will be "open" in that Microsoft sort of way) and the final crux will be the day this http://www.tidestone.com/index.jsp goes out of business. The first clue to eventual success is that Tidestone has re-emerged as a seperate business entity instead of just a redirect to a page on Actuate's site. The second is that they have lowered the price from 15k per processor to 5,000k per server (I'm sure there is a big astericks) http://www.tidestone.com/pricing/index.jsp. This is after an extensive advertising campaign including full page adds in Dr. Dobbs. This is despite some functionality that we do not yet have. I don't agree that it is a good metrics, since it's a crisis situation and a lot of other factors could be involved into pricing (product life cycle, etc.). Also, we are not trying to make anybody unhappy, that would be (at most) a side effect of our approach being successful. But the post goes on: My final measure is how much money I'm making and how many other POI developers I'm able to cut in on it. Thus far (this year) I'm able to derive 35% of my income from opensource efforts (a percentage which is up about 800% from last year). I suppose all of those are directly or indirectly related to POI. I'll undoubtably be flamed for this unique viewpoint, but its a measure which I find important. I've managed to pass on some of this work to two other POI committers thus far. (no one bother writing me offering to do this work, I only pass this work on to contributers to the project) So to me how many people are using POI and not contributing to the project in any way is totally irrelevant. I measure it in actual benefit to myself and the other contributers. To me any other mesure is trivial. This is the point I think merits further exposure/discussion. I'm not going to flame Andy on this, since I fully agree with it. If we cannot extract actual benefits from our involvement in Apache projects, the projects will not work/scale well. Each and everyone involved in Apache projects should benefit in terms of: * better career opportunities * being better known in the industry * having better tools in our daily work toolset * higher productivity in integration * knowing where technology is moving * __fill more here__ The Apache licensing model is oriented towards consultancy/system integration rather than product sales. This is in opposition to other licensing schemes like GNU: * If you hold the copyright of a GNU licensed stuff, you can re-license it as closed source (a lot of GNU-licensed projects are doing this, see Aladdin or Transvirtual with ghostscript and kaffe) * If you hold the copyright of an Apache, BSD or Artistic licensed stuff, it is far more difficult to do this, because everybody is free to do the same. This introduces an asymmetry I don't like WRT GNU licensed projects: the person transferring copyright looses rights WRT the person holding it. I don't critizise this approach with the FSF proper, but I don't like, for instance, kaffe benefiting from my patch and I being unable to benefit in the same way. Thus, I find that people doing system integration and consultancy, both in big and small companies will naturally prefer Apache-like licenses: * you don't need to care about your customer wanting closed modifications, as they can do them --> less overhead * you don't need to care if your customer wants to redistribute the outpu
