Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > > > > > IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading > > > > the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to > > > > focus > > > > on narrower concepts with alternative names. > > > > > > > > 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the > > > > proposed PMC. > > > > > > > > > Only that the community will be welcoming to newcomers and not treat the > > ASF community-project as the "company's private project"; e.g. stdcxx is > > largely one company, yet and still they brought across 2 mentors (Justin > > and myself) to ensure we continue to foster community with the stdcxx > > user community. A good c++ programmer/open source library user is > > always > > a potential patch contributor, more akin to apr, and very unlike httpd, > > and we see those users to become potential contributors. > > > > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, my personal and highly subjective interpretation of the (if > > > present) intent around diversity boils down to one scenario; > > > > > > * A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project > > > survive? > > > > > > > Actually I think we are far too obsessed with the prospects of letting > > a given project or podling die. So the project passes into lethargy > > and it's time ends, what's really so "negative" about that? We don't > > hold committers to the grindstone, why should we treat employer > > sponsored > > committers any differently? > > > > So, for the case of Tuscany; I am satisfied with the diversity goal, > > > and encourage Tuscany community with the aid of Mentors to move for > > > graduation. > > > > > > > ++1 > > > > So it seems like there is better support for Tuscany graduation now, are > there any other issues or concerns anyone would like to bring up before we > do make another attempt? > >...ant > > FYI, we've now started the tuscany-dev vote for doing this: http://apache.markmail.org/message/6bduwmwuhntbjafu ...ant
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Apr 16, 2008, at 6:56 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: There needs to be a balance. And I am satisfied that the Incubator PMC has been taking the right line on the issue so far, subjective as the line may be. FWIW, I also agree. And as a mentor, I think it results in a better podling/PPMC/graduate. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >>> 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the >>> proposed PMC. > Only that the community will be welcoming to newcomers and not treat the > ASF community-project as the "company's private project" Those are primary concerns, yes. We don't want a company hijacking a project and using the ASF's imprimatur in that manner. More importantly, we want to see continued community development. > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > * A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project survive? > Actually I think we are far too obsessed with the prospects of letting > a given project or podling die. There needs to be a balance. And I am satisfied that the Incubator PMC has been taking the right line on the issue so far, subjective as the line may be. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > > > IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading > > > the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus > > > on narrower concepts with alternative names. > > > > > > 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the > > > proposed PMC. > > > > > > Only that the community will be welcoming to newcomers and not treat the > ASF community-project as the "company's private project"; e.g. stdcxx is > largely one company, yet and still they brought across 2 mentors (Justin > and myself) to ensure we continue to foster community with the stdcxx > user community. A good c++ programmer/open source library user is always > a potential patch contributor, more akin to apr, and very unlike httpd, > and we see those users to become potential contributors. > > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > > > Also, my personal and highly subjective interpretation of the (if > > present) intent around diversity boils down to one scenario; > > > > * A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project > > survive? > > > > Actually I think we are far too obsessed with the prospects of letting > a given project or podling die. So the project passes into lethargy > and it's time ends, what's really so "negative" about that? We don't > hold committers to the grindstone, why should we treat employer sponsored > committers any differently? > > So, for the case of Tuscany; I am satisfied with the diversity goal, and > > encourage Tuscany community with the aid of Mentors to move for graduation. > > > > ++1 > So it seems like there is better support for Tuscany graduation now, are there any other issues or concerns anyone would like to bring up before we do make another attempt? ...ant
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:27 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > That would make the PPMC be about 50% IBM day job and 50% (non IBMers > or > > IBM non-day jobers). Can we take it to a private list if anyone wants a > > detailed breakdown? > > +1 > > IMO the IPMC is wrong to ask for named affiliations in public. > contractual information is potentially confidential and should be > discussed only in private. all that should be needed in public are > aggregate statistics. > > IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading > the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus > on narrower concepts with alternative names. > > 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the > proposed PMC. PMC conveys voting rights and control of the project > going forward. independent committers are fine but if these are not > being enfranchised then this should be a concern. so the aggregation > distribution of affiliations of PPMC members should be of interest. i > don't care what the affliation is, just the aggregate stats. > > 2. for a top level project to succeed, it needs to be able to > encrourage, recruit and mentor new independent developers. unless a > project demonstrates the ability to recruit new independent > developers, it is not ready to graduate. so, i would like to know how > many new independent committers the project has developed, am > interested in the quantity of code they've contributed and whether > they are on the PPMC. again, i don't care about their affiliations. > Some answers to these: Here is the timeline of new committers additions to Tuscany: 2008-04-16 Vote to add Wang Feng as Tuscany committer 2008-03-26 Vote to add Giorgio Zoppi as Tuscany committer 2007-11-19 Vote to add Rajini Sivaram as Tuscany committer 2007-11-01 Vote to add Mark Combellack as Tuscany committer 2007-10-21 Vote to add Michael Yoder as Tuscany committer 2007-10-08 Vote to add Amita Vadhavkar as a new committer 2007-09-19 Vote to add Simon Nash as a new committer 2007-08-21 Vote to add Brady Johnson as a new committer 2007-07-12 Vote to add Fuhwei Lwo as a new committer 2007-05-01 Vote to add Andy Grove as a new committer 2007-04-03 Vote to add Adriano Crestani as a new committer 2007-01-22 Vote to add Simon Laws as a new committer 2006-11-15 Vote to add Geoffrey Winn as a new committer 2006-11-10 Vote to add Luciano Resende as a new commiter 2006-11-07 Vote to add Rajith Attapattu 2006-09-29 Vote to add Ignacio Silva-Lepe as a new committer 2006-09-18 Vote to add Venkata Krishnan as a new committer 2006-08-10 Vote to add Andrew Borley as a new committer 2006-08-07 Vote to add Meeraj Kunnumpurath as a new committer 2006-08-07 Vote to add Kelvin Goodson as a new committer 2006-08-06 Vote to add Brent Daniel as a new committer 2006-08-04 Vote to add Raymond Feng as a new committer 2006-05-02 Vote to add Dan Kulp as a new committer 2006-03-01 Vote to add Ant Elder as a new committer So thats 24 new committers over the two and a bit years of incubation, about one new committer every month or two. Of those, 12 were IBMers, 12 were independents or non-paid job IBMers. The actual quantity of code each of those have done is harder to say but using the dates on that list if you trawl around in the tuscany-private archives you can see the discussion around each nomination and I think be satisfied each was justified. Not all those have become PPMC members (yet), some committers don't stay active and we've had PPMC membership take a little longer and require a bit more commitment to the project, but as mentioned earlier on this thread the Tuscany PPMC currently has 15 members, about 50% IBM day job and 50% (non IBMers or IBM non-day jobers). ...ant
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus on narrower concepts with alternative names. 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the proposed PMC. Only that the community will be welcoming to newcomers and not treat the ASF community-project as the "company's private project"; e.g. stdcxx is largely one company, yet and still they brought across 2 mentors (Justin and myself) to ensure we continue to foster community with the stdcxx user community. A good c++ programmer/open source library user is always a potential patch contributor, more akin to apr, and very unlike httpd, and we see those users to become potential contributors. Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Also, my personal and highly subjective interpretation of the (if present) intent around diversity boils down to one scenario; * A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project survive? Actually I think we are far too obsessed with the prospects of letting a given project or podling die. So the project passes into lethargy and it's time ends, what's really so "negative" about that? We don't hold committers to the grindstone, why should we treat employer sponsored committers any differently? So, for the case of Tuscany; I am satisfied with the diversity goal, and encourage Tuscany community with the aid of Mentors to move for graduation. ++1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
I am glad that I brought up the discussion on Tuscany graduation with Bill Rowe at ApacheConEU 2008. Happy to see this gain momentum and the positive responses :). ++Vamsi On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading > > the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus > > on narrower concepts with alternative names. > > > > 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the > > proposed PMC. > > > > 2. for a top level project to succeed, it needs to be able to > > encrourage, recruit and mentor new independent developers. > > +1. > > Also, my personal and highly subjective interpretation of the (if present) > intent around diversity boils down to one scenario; > > * A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project survive? > > Other cases of dominance have been brought up, such as forcing the > company's > will upon the community, rejection to expand the developer community and > PMC > membership, and so forth. I find these issues less important, as ASF > Members > can (and should) monitor PMCs in general and raise flags to the board if > misuse is happening, and we have been there before and can deal with it. > > So, for the case of Tuscany; I am satisfied with the diversity goal, and > encourage Tuscany community with the aid of Mentors to move for > graduation. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading > the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus > on narrower concepts with alternative names. > > 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the > proposed PMC. > > 2. for a top level project to succeed, it needs to be able to > encrourage, recruit and mentor new independent developers. +1. Also, my personal and highly subjective interpretation of the (if present) intent around diversity boils down to one scenario; * A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project survive? Other cases of dominance have been brought up, such as forcing the company's will upon the community, rejection to expand the developer community and PMC membership, and so forth. I find these issues less important, as ASF Members can (and should) monitor PMCs in general and raise flags to the board if misuse is happening, and we have been there before and can deal with it. So, for the case of Tuscany; I am satisfied with the diversity goal, and encourage Tuscany community with the aid of Mentors to move for graduation. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:27 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would make the PPMC be about 50% IBM day job and 50% (non IBMers or > IBM non-day jobers). Can we take it to a private list if anyone wants a > detailed breakdown? +1 IMO the IPMC is wrong to ask for named affiliations in public. contractual information is potentially confidential and should be discussed only in private. all that should be needed in public are aggregate statistics. IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus on narrower concepts with alternative names. 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the proposed PMC. PMC conveys voting rights and control of the project going forward. independent committers are fine but if these are not being enfranchised then this should be a concern. so the aggregation distribution of affiliations of PPMC members should be of interest. i don't care what the affliation is, just the aggregate stats. 2. for a top level project to succeed, it needs to be able to encrourage, recruit and mentor new independent developers. unless a project demonstrates the ability to recruit new independent developers, it is not ready to graduate. so, i would like to know how many new independent committers the project has developed, am interested in the quantity of code they've contributed and whether they are on the PPMC. again, i don't care about their affiliations. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/10/08, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > i've been a passive subscriber to the tuscany list for quite a while > > > > now and to me, from the lists, it feels like an open community > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while since we discussed this. > > > > > > I'm very curious where Tuscany stands - in terms of viably graduating > > > at this point. The one apparent issue is diversity - but I don't > think > > > we want to continue using that as a cudgel - in fact I think we are > > > going to get very 'full' here at the Incubator if we have unrealistic > > > expectations. > > > > > > > > > Can someone fill me in on how many non-IBM PPMC members now > participate? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > The complete PPMC list is being maintained on the graduation proposal > wiki > > page - > > > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Draft+TLP+Resolution > > > > So thats 15 members, currently 3 non-IBMers. However there have been > > regularly new committers added so I expect there may be other non-IBMer > > committers we will add to that PPMC list before our next graduation > > attempt > > (which i expect wont be so long away, we are actively thinking about > > it...). > > > You should also mention people who happen to work for IBM but are not > working on Tuscany as part of their daily job. > > Cheers, > Matthieu > > ...ant > > That would make the PPMC be about 50% IBM day job and 50% (non IBMers or IBM non-day jobers). Can we take it to a private list if anyone wants a detailed breakdown? ...ant
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On 4/10/08, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > > > > > > i've been a passive subscriber to the tuscany list for quite a while > > > now and to me, from the lists, it feels like an open community > > > > > > > It's been a while since we discussed this. > > > > I'm very curious where Tuscany stands - in terms of viably graduating > > at this point. The one apparent issue is diversity - but I don't think > > we want to continue using that as a cudgel - in fact I think we are > > going to get very 'full' here at the Incubator if we have unrealistic > > expectations. > > > > > > Can someone fill me in on how many non-IBM PPMC members now participate? > > > > Bill > > > > > The complete PPMC list is being maintained on the graduation proposal wiki > page - > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Draft+TLP+Resolution > > So thats 15 members, currently 3 non-IBMers. However there have been > regularly new committers added so I expect there may be other non-IBMer > committers we will add to that PPMC list before our next graduation > attempt > (which i expect wont be so long away, we are actively thinking about > it...). You should also mention people who happen to work for IBM but are not working on Tuscany as part of their daily job. Cheers, Matthieu ...ant >
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > > > i've been a passive subscriber to the tuscany list for quite a while > > now and to me, from the lists, it feels like an open community > > > > It's been a while since we discussed this. > > I'm very curious where Tuscany stands - in terms of viably graduating > at this point. The one apparent issue is diversity - but I don't think > we want to continue using that as a cudgel - in fact I think we are > going to get very 'full' here at the Incubator if we have unrealistic > expectations. > > > Can someone fill me in on how many non-IBM PPMC members now participate? > > Bill > The complete PPMC list is being maintained on the graduation proposal wiki page - http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Draft+TLP+Resolution So thats 15 members, currently 3 non-IBMers. However there have been regularly new committers added so I expect there may be other non-IBMer committers we will add to that PPMC list before our next graduation attempt (which i expect wont be so long away, we are actively thinking about it...). ...ant
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: i've been a passive subscriber to the tuscany list for quite a while now and to me, from the lists, it feels like an open community It's been a while since we discussed this. I'm very curious where Tuscany stands - in terms of viably graduating at this point. The one apparent issue is diversity - but I don't think we want to continue using that as a cudgel - in fact I think we are going to get very 'full' here at the Incubator if we have unrealistic expectations. Can someone fill me in on how many non-IBM PPMC members now participate? Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On 10/24/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, > > Thanks for this feedback. I think you raise a good point that one of > the goals of community building is discovering a community's true > synergies and strengths and that sometimes the right outcome is not a > single community. Where goals are mis-aligned then a respectful > change of direction is sometimes the best path. I trust your work is > going well over at Codehaus and that y'all are fairing well and > building a community is going also flourishing. +1 > Although I don't follow the Fabric 3 work I can say that Tuscany has > settled into a pace and cadence that suits them. I trust you are on > a similar path. +1 i've been a passive subscriber to the tuscany list for quite a while now and to me, from the lists, it feels like an open community - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Jim, Thanks for this feedback. I think you raise a good point that one of the goals of community building is discovering a community's true synergies and strengths and that sometimes the right outcome is not a single community. Where goals are mis-aligned then a respectful change of direction is sometimes the best path. I trust your work is going well over at Codehaus and that y'all are fairing well and building a community is going also flourishing. Although I don't follow the Fabric 3 work I can say that Tuscany has settled into a pace and cadence that suits them. I trust you are on a similar path. On Oct 23, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Jim Marino wrote: It does seem both it and our community (Fabric3) have a lot less friction and are growing nicely. Sometimes communities just diverge based on differences of opinion, technical or otherwise, and trying to villainize one group is the wrong approach since it is not constructive.
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
On Oct 23, 2007, at 6:43 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Noel, I was there when it happened. It was actually the other way around..Short story, the "independents" had trouble letting anyone else work or suggest ideas which went against their own mental model of how things should be. When i argued for a middle path vociferously, they left. -- dims Dims, I was simply trying to clear up a point of ambiguity with respect to my (and by extension my employer's) involvement in Tuscany. I was hoping to avoid digging up the past, which doesn't serve good purposes. Were the independents completely intransigent or were the others inflexible? Sometimes people just have different goals and reconciliation doesn't work because things are too far apart. I and the others working on the SCA Java implementation left the project because there was constant friction and differences of opinion, and we felt it best for the two camps to go their separate ways. I previously explained my motivations here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200703.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately, I don't have much time to follow Tuscany closely although I do check the lists occasionally. It does seem both it and our community (Fabric3) have a lot less friction and are growing nicely. Sometimes communities just diverge based on differences of opinion, technical or otherwise, and trying to villainize one group is the wrong approach since it is not constructive. I wish Tuscany luck as I work closely with some of those involved in the project on the SCA specifications and have a lot of technical and personal respect for them. Jim On 10/23/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matthieu Riou wrote: they did welcome enough independent committers while being in the incubator Attracting a large quantity of independent developers while being in the incubator is pretty hard Yes, but it seems to be emerging that there *were* more independents, and they have left to work actively elsewhere (as indicated by Jim Marino for BEA). Is this an indicator that the community wasn't able to embrace the interests of more than one vendor? Since SCA is a standard, why was there a need to fork the implementation? --- Noel P.S. I've removed [VOTE], since Ant indicates that the vote is being tabled for now. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com - 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: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Just one example of the community bending over back wards to accomodate Jim and Jeremy http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05118.html Please search for "chianti" in the archives to get the background. Basically the trunk was abandoned and the revolutionary "fork" was accepted *JUST* for community reasons. thanks, dims On 10/23/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Noel, > > FYI, I could plainly see who was working hard to co-exist and who > wasnt'. IMHO, the people who left clearly did not want to > play/participate. It was sacrilege to do anything that was against > their mental model of things had to work. > > My 2 cents. > > -- dims > > On 10/23/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim Marino wrote: > > > > > About seven months ago, BEA decided to pursue an alternative > > > direction with the other active independents working on SCA > > > at the time when our goals diverged from others in the community. > > > Speaking for BEA, we made it clear on multiple occasions that > > > while we wished Tuscany success, given the divergent interests, > > > we were satisfied with our decision to participate elsewhere. > > > It is unlikely we will revisit this decision in the future. > > > > This should be a cautionary tale to communities if a project cannot serve > > the interests of all its members. > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Noel, FYI, I could plainly see who was working hard to co-exist and who wasnt'. IMHO, the people who left clearly did not want to play/participate. It was sacrilege to do anything that was against their mental model of things had to work. My 2 cents. -- dims On 10/23/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Marino wrote: > > > About seven months ago, BEA decided to pursue an alternative > > direction with the other active independents working on SCA > > at the time when our goals diverged from others in the community. > > Speaking for BEA, we made it clear on multiple occasions that > > while we wished Tuscany success, given the divergent interests, > > we were satisfied with our decision to participate elsewhere. > > It is unlikely we will revisit this decision in the future. > > This should be a cautionary tale to communities if a project cannot serve > the interests of all its members. > > --- Noel > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Noel, I was there when it happened. It was actually the other way around..Short story, the "independents" had trouble letting anyone else work or suggest ideas which went against their own mental model of how things should be. When i argued for a middle path vociferously, they left. -- dims On 10/23/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthieu Riou wrote: > > > they did welcome enough independent committers while being in the > > incubator > > > Attracting a large quantity of independent developers while being > > in the incubator is pretty hard > > Yes, but it seems to be emerging that there *were* more independents, and > they have left to work actively elsewhere (as indicated by Jim Marino for > BEA). Is this an indicator that the community wasn't able to embrace the > interests of more than one vendor? Since SCA is a standard, why was there a > need to fork the implementation? > > --- Noel > > P.S. I've removed [VOTE], since Ant indicates that the vote is being tabled > for now. > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Jim Marino wrote: > About seven months ago, BEA decided to pursue an alternative > direction with the other active independents working on SCA > at the time when our goals diverged from others in the community. > Speaking for BEA, we made it clear on multiple occasions that > while we wished Tuscany success, given the divergent interests, > we were satisfied with our decision to participate elsewhere. > It is unlikely we will revisit this decision in the future. This should be a cautionary tale to communities if a project cannot serve the interests of all its members. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Matthieu Riou wrote: > they did welcome enough independent committers while being in the > incubator > Attracting a large quantity of independent developers while being > in the incubator is pretty hard Yes, but it seems to be emerging that there *were* more independents, and they have left to work actively elsewhere (as indicated by Jim Marino for BEA). Is this an indicator that the community wasn't able to embrace the interests of more than one vendor? Since SCA is a standard, why was there a need to fork the implementation? --- Noel P.S. I've removed [VOTE], since Ant indicates that the vote is being tabled for now. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
