Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 04:38, Gunnar Rønning wrote:
> * Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:08, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> | > Some of the existing projects within Jakarta are server-side only,
> | > others are client-side as well as server-side, none are client-side
> | > only.
> |
> | except for JMeter ?
>
> JMeter is useful for testing server side applications and I think it would
> be within scope. For me Jakarta is a bunch of projects that are useful for
> development of server side applications.

And ant is useful because it may be used to build server side projects? 
Wouldn't swing components be also useful because most serverside components 
require you to build somethintg to communicate? ;)

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*--*
|  Hlade's Law: If you have a difficult task, give it  |
| to a lazy person -- they will find an easier |
|way to do it. |
*--*

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Gunnar Rønning]

* Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:08, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
| > Some of the existing projects within Jakarta are server-side only, others
| > are client-side as well as server-side, none are client-side only. 
| 
| except for JMeter ?

JMeter is useful for testing server side applications and I think it would
be within scope. For me Jakarta is a bunch of projects that are useful for 
development of server side applications. 

-- 
Gunnar Rønning - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Cultural homogeneity

[Paulo Gaspar]

> So, that's my $0.00 this time around (that's about 10,000 Turkish 
> Lira today). 

I would give at least 2 Euros for this one!
=:o)

Couldn't say it better... or I would have done it before!
=:o)


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Kief Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:30 AM
> 
> Jon Scott Stevens typed the following on 04:22 PM 1/6/2002 -0800
> >on 1/6/02 3:46 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Although I haven't been participating, I've been following 
> this discussion,
> >> and would like to donate my 30,000 Turkish Lira (roughly $0.02 
> at today's
> >> rates).
> >
> >Yes, everyone has an opinion and it is easy to express, but no 
> one stands up
> >to actually make anything of it. So, therefore, the opinion is actually
> >worthless (ie: $0.00).
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way Jon, but I don't entirely see that 
> you're making
> anything of your opinions either. Not to disrespect your contributions to
> Jakarta, but if we're discussing what's wrong with Jakarta, what's your 
> solution? So far the most concrete solution I've seen from you is that
> Geir or Ceki would make a better PMC than Sam, presumably because
> they would govern with a more iron fist. So, if that's what you want, do
> something about it, you're a PMC member, call for a vote. Otherwise,
> what do you suggest be done?
> 
> What exactly *is* the problem with Jakarta from your POV? My 
> interpretation
> of your comments is that Jakarta needs to be more tightly managed (more
> Cathedral than Bazaar?) I see this as more of a philosophical 
> problem: some
> people prefer a more loosely knit organization, consensus rather 
> than command,
> some prefer a more tightly run ship. You say that the current management
> philosophy has sunk the ship, Jakarta is a big failure, etc., but 
> what *exactly*
> has gone wrong?
> 
> - Code standards are not being enforced. An issue, maybe, but IMO 
> not something
>   that has killed the project, I can't see that it's had a 
> negative effect on the
>   quality of the code or its success in the industry: it's just 
> untidy. And I think it's
>   perfectly correctible within the current regime. Somebody who 
> doesn't like it
>   can implement the system Sam suggested to monitor and nag code 
> formatting.
>   If nobody can be arsed to implement that, it can't be that big 
> a problem, can it?
> 
> - Duplication of code (logging, validation, etc.) Partly a 
> philosophical problem. As Craig
>   says, diversity is good. On the other hand, maybe Jakarta 
> should present a clear,
>   unified interface to its users.
> 
> I have to straddle the fence here, (sorry, I'm failing to make 
> something again), and
> say I agree that Jakarta could be better, but I don't think a 
> more dictatorial central
> command would achieve that. For example, you suggest Sam should 
> "take authority 
> and mandate" documentation requirements. Why not propose it, and have the
> community agree on it? If the community doesn't want to do it, 
> Sam or someone
> else imposing rules from on high isn't going to make them do it. 
> 
> I can see your frustration - there are lots of things like the 
> above issues that
> you would like to see changed, and if the only way to make them happen is
> for an interested person to make it so, then you're faced with 
> the alternatives
> of doing it yourself (and you already do a lot of shit, and 
> apparently on the
> edge of burning yourself out), or seeing it not get done. Having 
> someone else
> take charge and impose order probably seems like the ideal solution. 
> 
> But if someone were to actually do that at Jakarta, the suspect 
> the results would 
> be massive defections, and a severe shrinking of the project. A 
> laissez-faire
> community can tolerate people who want more order, but an authoritarian
> regime can't tolerate those who want more freedom.
> 
> Maybe defections of those who don't want a tightly run ship would 
> suit you, Jakarta 
> would be reduced to a smaller, more easily managed project, more 
> like the old
> days, perhaps. 
> 
> So I'm still not contributing anything to this. Why not? Because 
> Jakarta as it
> exists suits my needs very well. I'm always finding more useful 
> stuff in Jakarta,
> and although there are rough edges - build processes aren't 
> consistent, and it
> does occasionally annoy me to have to install a different package 
> for logging
> or such - for the most part, these things are much more 
> consistent than what I 
> find on sourceforge. If I can find a Jakarta package that does 
> what I need, I don't
> usually care if what's on sourceforge is better, I'll use the 
> Jakarta version
> because it shares the build processes, package dependencies, and process
> for contributing changes, that I'm used to. The sourceforge 
> projects I've dabbled
> with just aren't put together the way I like.
> 
> So, that's my $0.00 this time around (that's about 1

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Kief Morris]

Jon Scott Stevens typed the following on 04:22 PM 1/6/2002 -0800
>on 1/6/02 3:46 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Although I haven't been participating, I've been following this discussion,
>> and would like to donate my 30,000 Turkish Lira (roughly $0.02 at today's
>> rates).
>
>Yes, everyone has an opinion and it is easy to express, but no one stands up
>to actually make anything of it. So, therefore, the opinion is actually
>worthless (ie: $0.00).

I'm sorry you feel that way Jon, but I don't entirely see that you're making
anything of your opinions either. Not to disrespect your contributions to
Jakarta, but if we're discussing what's wrong with Jakarta, what's your 
solution? So far the most concrete solution I've seen from you is that
Geir or Ceki would make a better PMC than Sam, presumably because
they would govern with a more iron fist. So, if that's what you want, do
something about it, you're a PMC member, call for a vote. Otherwise,
what do you suggest be done?

What exactly *is* the problem with Jakarta from your POV? My interpretation
of your comments is that Jakarta needs to be more tightly managed (more
Cathedral than Bazaar?) I see this as more of a philosophical problem: some
people prefer a more loosely knit organization, consensus rather than command,
some prefer a more tightly run ship. You say that the current management
philosophy has sunk the ship, Jakarta is a big failure, etc., but what *exactly*
has gone wrong?

- Code standards are not being enforced. An issue, maybe, but IMO not something
  that has killed the project, I can't see that it's had a negative effect on the
  quality of the code or its success in the industry: it's just untidy. And I think 
it's
  perfectly correctible within the current regime. Somebody who doesn't like it
  can implement the system Sam suggested to monitor and nag code formatting.
  If nobody can be arsed to implement that, it can't be that big a problem, can it?

- Duplication of code (logging, validation, etc.) Partly a philosophical problem. As 
Craig
  says, diversity is good. On the other hand, maybe Jakarta should present a clear,
  unified interface to its users.

I have to straddle the fence here, (sorry, I'm failing to make something again), and
say I agree that Jakarta could be better, but I don't think a more dictatorial central
command would achieve that. For example, you suggest Sam should "take authority 
and mandate" documentation requirements. Why not propose it, and have the
community agree on it? If the community doesn't want to do it, Sam or someone
else imposing rules from on high isn't going to make them do it. 

I can see your frustration - there are lots of things like the above issues that
you would like to see changed, and if the only way to make them happen is
for an interested person to make it so, then you're faced with the alternatives
of doing it yourself (and you already do a lot of shit, and apparently on the
edge of burning yourself out), or seeing it not get done. Having someone else
take charge and impose order probably seems like the ideal solution. 

But if someone were to actually do that at Jakarta, the suspect the results would 
be massive defections, and a severe shrinking of the project. A laissez-faire
community can tolerate people who want more order, but an authoritarian
regime can't tolerate those who want more freedom.

Maybe defections of those who don't want a tightly run ship would suit you, Jakarta 
would be reduced to a smaller, more easily managed project, more like the old
days, perhaps. 

So I'm still not contributing anything to this. Why not? Because Jakarta as it
exists suits my needs very well. I'm always finding more useful stuff in Jakarta,
and although there are rough edges - build processes aren't consistent, and it
does occasionally annoy me to have to install a different package for logging
or such - for the most part, these things are much more consistent than what I 
find on sourceforge. If I can find a Jakarta package that does what I need, I don't
usually care if what's on sourceforge is better, I'll use the Jakarta version
because it shares the build processes, package dependencies, and process
for contributing changes, that I'm used to. The sourceforge projects I've dabbled
with just aren't put together the way I like.

So, that's my $0.00 this time around (that's about 10,000 Turkish Lira today). 

Kief


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/6/02 3:46 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Although I haven't been participating, I've been following this discussion,
> and would like to donate my 30,000 Turkish Lira (roughly $0.02 at today's
> rates).

Yes, everyone has an opinion and it is easy to express, but no one stands up
to actually make anything of it. So, therefore, the opinion is actually
worthless (ie: $0.00).

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Kief Morris]

Although I haven't been participating, I've been following this discussion, and
would like to donate my 30,000 Turkish Lira (roughly $0.02 at today's rates).

What is a Jakarta subproject? The one common thread I see in pretty much all
Jakarta subprojects is that they serve the needs of people developing server-side
Java applications. They may be actual servers, like Tomcat, frameworks (or
whatever you call it ;) for building servers, like Avalon, tools like Velocity,
Ant, JMeter, etc., but pretty much all of them are useful for building server
applications in Java, and few, if any, are at all (directly) useful to an end-user.
My grandmother is never going to use a Jakarta-based tool, although she
may enjoy a web site running on Tomcat or receive an email generated with
James and Velocity.

So I agree that having a strictly defined scope isn't going to be useful (and is
difficult to define anyway), and I also agree that lack of focus can lead to
diffusion of the community and its value. The scope is defined by the community:
a subproject belongs if it fits the needs of the community. 

I think making tools for developing server side apps in Java is a decent definition 
of what this community is about. It's certainly what brought me here and keeps
me using Jakarta software, and occasionally contributing code. It ought to keep 
out things like text editors which, although useful to the community, doesn't
really "feel" like it fits, unless it has some features which are particularly
killer for server side development work. 

As for POI, it seems to me that the developers are certainly a part of the
same community as Jakarta: their focus seems to be making a tool for
server side Java developers, even if it is a bit of a niche which "smells"
client sidish. 

And I think we ought to keep Andrew Oliver around even if POI is minused
out.

Kief


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 1:59 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> With the the high threshold of entry I doubt jakarta will ever be in the same
> category as sourceforge - I can't see that as anything but a strawman that is
> brought up every now and again ;)

Here is the threshold of entry as stated by Sam today :

On 1/6/02 11:50 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Similarly, if POI or any other code base
> actively wanted to join Jakarta and we felt it was compatible with the
> community, then I would fight to make whatever adjustments to the charter
> that were required to make this happen.


First, I don't necessarily disagree.

The point of discussion in Sams statement is the phrase "we felt it was
compatible with the community".

As the community grows, I think the notion of 'compatible' gains a larger
surface area, which means that by waiting around long enough, any project is
acceptable as the surface area will eventually grow such that your location
in 'parameter space' is near enough.

It's stepwise in a way : the best argument about POI so far is that Lucene
can use it, so now we extend from Lucene to POI.  (Again, welcome POI :)

That assumes that the community can be sustained to an arbitrarily large
size.  I wonder if it can (I don't know), I wonder if the risk is worth the
possible upside, and I wonder if now isn't an appropriate time to consider
this issue :)


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"Now what do we do?"


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> Just to have a little fun (and this time, it is very intentional)... the
>> project I consider most "out of scope" is dvsl.  There is nothing server
>> specific about it, and has everything in the world to do with XML.  Check
>> it out for yourself: http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/dvsl/index.html .
>
> I do too, and I wrote it.  I was going to put DVSL at sourceforge, but was
> strongly encouraged by people I talked to to make it a part of the Velocity
> community.   Note that it isn't considered 'core' to velocity.

Cool.  A true literal interpretion of scope vs. wishes of the community
issue.  I'm pleased to see that the right decision was made.

>> I still maintain that scope is a distraction.  Community is what is
>> important.
>
> I think I wrote that a message or to ago as well.  More crossing the
ether I
> suppose.

Yup.  I was still processing the "I'll continue to swim upstream." e-mail
when I wrote that.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Cultural homogeneity

[Paulo Gaspar]

> I was just using it as a platform for the topic I really want to discuss.

Go for the topic.
=:o)

I think that we are already discussing that topic but POI is now becoming
more of a distraction than an example.

Name the topic and I will try not to get distracted.
=;o)


Have fun,
Paulo


> -Original Message-
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 7:14 PM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: Cultural homogeneity
>
>
> On 1/6/02 1:08 PM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I would again try to get is to consider that we have a great
> chance to use a
> > strong community to anchor a new project.  Jakarta can't grow forever.
> >
> > When do you decide to actually step up and try to make a change?  I hope
> > it's *before* the outside perception of Jakarta changes from
> that of a place
> > of high-quality projects with strong communities and colorful
> characters, to
> > Apache Sourceforge for Java.
>
> And I want to add something for the record, as I am frustrated
> and will try
> (try!) to shut up :
>
> This has nothing to do with the relative merits of POI.
>
> I am sure, given the clarity of thought and debate from Andrew, as well as
> the support from Stefano, that it will be a swell addition to the Jakarta
> fold.
>
> I was just using it as a platform for the topic I really want to discuss.
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> System and Software Consulting
> "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by
> subduing the
> freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: Cultural homogeneity

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 7:09 PM
> 
> ...
>
> When do you decide to actually step up and try to make a change?  I hope
> it's *before* the outside perception of Jakarta changes from that 
> of a place of high-quality projects with strong communities and colorful 
> characters, to Apache Sourceforge for Java.
 
I believe that Jakarta will not be "Sourceforge for Java" while the 
"high-quality projects with strong communities" part is enforced and there
is pressure to merge what can be merged.

And notice that I do not mean doing things like merging LogKit and Log4J.
I like to have them BOTH and they are small enough to keep it that way 
while evolution takes care of finding another path.

But with larger projects that are just the same thing per definition (XML 
parsers? and respective standard) it makes sense trying to unify them. 
And this does not mean that alternative solutions should not be attempted
as they are in any project.

It is quite different with SourceForge.


Anyway, I just hope we keep having a SourceForge in the future. Its role
as an Open Source nursery/farm is extremely important.

Apache is just something different. It is not fair to depreciate 
SourceForge.


Have fun,
Paulo

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

+1 to everything Peter says here. 

-Ted.

Peter Donald wrote:
> I must have missed that bit. The PMC serves a useful purpose (effectively
> policing/fixing things when it is absiolutely necessary and encouragiung
> growth in the "Apache Spirit")

...

> So I keep hearing everyone say and I watch with amusement as every new
> project is brought to Jakarta ;)
> 
> Personally I think that jakarta is the only place that has the presence to
> actually achieve something like that. Eclipse/netbeans are too vendor
> specific, sourceforge is not a community, GNU people generally consider java
> "a blight upon the free software world" or at least their leader does, Linux
> people don't like it because it is OS-agnostic (and they want linux to be a
> required component rather than one of a bunch).

...
 
> > Jakarta can't grow forever.
> 
> Why not ?
> 
> > When do you decide to actually step up and try to make a change?
> 
> Never if you think they are fine as they are ;)

...

> With the the high threshold of entry I doubt jakarta will ever be in the same
> category as sourceforge - I can't see that as anything but a strawman that is
> brought up every now and again ;)
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete


-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 05:08, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> Again, you might think the above is flip, but you are talking about
> >> modifying the charter here...
> >
> > The charter was modified ages ago. Sure the words haven't changed but it
> > has been a long time since jakarta project was actually true to the words
> > in its charter ... see Ant the "server-side" project
>
> And I keep bringing that up for consideration every few months.  Even just
> at the level of organizing the site better to help people visiting us to
> see what we do.

theres no better way to get something done except by doing it yourself ;)

> > I have always been of the opinion that scope is a STUPID way to manage
> > this sort of thing because it will inevitably lead to stifling of
> > community or arbitrary violation. Rather than delluding ourselves
> > wouldn't better to disregard scope and instead have a "focus".
> >
> > We "focus" on java products. Traditionally they are serverside and would
> > likely to remain so (because you need a PMC sponsor/champion for new
> > projects and most PMC members are serverside peeps). However I would have
> > no problem if someone wanted to have other similarly focused projects -
> > even if they were clienside or written in c or whatever.
>
> And with the recent suggestion to get rid of the PMC and just do it via
> group consensus, then what? 

I must have missed that bit. The PMC serves a useful purpose (effectively 
policing/fixing things when it is absiolutely necessary and encouragiung 
growth in the "Apache Spirit") 

> No more PMC champion.  And without the PMC, I
> suspect no more Jakarta if Roy hasn't changed his mind.

> > For instance if IBM wanted to donate jikes to Apache and there was enough
> > community to support it - would you knock it back because it was C? or
> > would you reclassify it as a compiler used to build serverside java apps?
>
> No, I think it would be great.  However, it's not clear that we dump
> everything with a .java file into Jakarta though.  That would be another
> great 'anchor project' to build a new project around.

So I keep hearing everyone say and I watch with amusement as every new 
project is brought to Jakarta ;)

Personally I think that jakarta is the only place that has the presence to 
actually achieve something like that. Eclipse/netbeans are too vendor 
specific, sourceforge is not a community, GNU people generally consider java 
"a blight upon the free software world" or at least their leader does, Linux 
people don't like it because it is OS-agnostic (and they want linux to be a 
required component rather than one of a bunch).

> Jakarta can't grow forever.

Why not ?

> When do you decide to actually step up and try to make a change? 

Never if you think they are fine as they are ;)

> I hope
> it's *before* the outside perception of Jakarta changes from that of a
> place of high-quality projects with strong communities and colorful
> characters, to Apache Sourceforge for Java.

With the the high threshold of entry I doubt jakarta will ever be in the same 
category as sourceforge - I can't see that as anything but a strawman that is 
brought up every now and again ;)

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

Duct tape is like the force.  It has a light side, and a dark side, and
it binds the universe together ...
-- Carl Zwanzig

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Cultural homogeneity

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Or maybe "we" should just recognize that use of those terms is relatively 
> arbitrary for many (most?) of the jakarta projects and throw it away 
> completely? 

That is exactly what I think.

Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 6:57 PM
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:57, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > So the problematic part of the conversation is that we are hung 
> up on the
> > literal semantics behind the words 'client' and 'server' and 
> would be good
> > to explore that.
> 
> Or maybe "we" should just recognize that use of those terms is relatively 
> arbitrary for many (most?) of the jakarta projects and throw it away 
> completely? 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 13:26 06.01.2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>>> Again, you might think the above is flip, but you are talking about
>>> modifying the charter here...
>>
>> The charter was modified ages ago. Sure the words haven't changed but it has
>> been a long time since jakarta project was actually true to the words in its
>> charter ... see Ant the "server-side" project
>>
>> So instead of accepting that we violate scope with more than half the jakarta
>> projects people took to inventing reasons to keep them at jakarta. ie Ant
>> became acceptable because it was a tool that could be used to build
>> serverside projects. How silly is that reason?
>
>Slightly revisionist.  Ant was part of the original charter for Jakarta.
>There was a sister project named "Java" which contained a number of other
>projects
>
>Just to have a little fun (and this time, it is very intentional)... the
>project I consider most "out of scope" is dvsl.  There is nothing server
>specific about it, and has everything in the world to do with XML.  Check
>it out for yourself: http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/dvsl/index.html .
>
>I still maintain that scope is a distraction.  Community is what is
>important.

Agreed. Community is what is important. How is this consistent with your previous 
remarks about what Roy may think of widening the scope?  

More importantly, does the project (in the sense of XML or Jakarta) set the community? 
The projects influences the community but does not set it. There is emerging consensus 
that the umbrella projects we have are somewhat artificial. So what do we do? Shrug 
our shoulders and move on? Regards, Ceki


--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 1:26 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Peter Donald wrote:
>> 
>>> Again, you might think the above is flip, but you are talking about
>>> modifying the charter here...
>> 
>> The charter was modified ages ago. Sure the words haven't changed but it has
>> been a long time since jakarta project was actually true to the words in its
>> charter ... see Ant the "server-side" project
>> 
>> So instead of accepting that we violate scope with more than half the jakarta
>> projects people took to inventing reasons to keep them at jakarta. ie Ant
>> became acceptable because it was a tool that could be used to build
>> serverside projects. How silly is that reason?
> 
> Slightly revisionist.  Ant was part of the original charter for Jakarta.
> There was a sister project named "Java" which contained a number of other
> projects
> 
> Just to have a little fun (and this time, it is very intentional)... the
> project I consider most "out of scope" is dvsl.  There is nothing server
> specific about it, and has everything in the world to do with XML.  Check
> it out for yourself: http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/dvsl/index.html .
> 

I do too, and I wrote it.  I was going to put DVSL at sourceforge, but was
strongly encouraged by people I talked to to make it a part of the Velocity
community.   Note that it isn't considered 'core' to velocity.

 I even bought the dvsl.org domain name, so you know that I am being honest
here.

To that end, gump is just susceptible to the same observation.  Until
recently, it wasn't even written in java, was it?  Wasn't it shell scripts
and xsl?

Maybe we should use it as an anchor project for an Apache shell script and
xsl community 

:)

And I thought that my belief that sam picks on me was my delusion...


> I still maintain that scope is a distraction.  Community is what is
> important.
> 

I think I wrote that a message or to ago as well.  More crossing the ether I
suppose.


> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the
freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> I would again try to get is to consider that we have a great chance to
use a
> strong community to anchor a new project.  Jakarta can't grow forever.
>
> When do you decide to actually step up and try to make a change?  I hope
> it's *before* the outside perception of Jakarta changes from that of a
place
> of high-quality projects with strong communities and colorful characters,
to
> Apache Sourceforge for Java.

BINGO!  I believe that Geir has just crafted the most appropriate wording
for the new scope of Jakarta.  Of course, I mean the "before" part of the
last sentence, not the "after".

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

Peter Donald wrote:
>
>> Again, you might think the above is flip, but you are talking about
>> modifying the charter here...
>
> The charter was modified ages ago. Sure the words haven't changed but it has
> been a long time since jakarta project was actually true to the words in its
> charter ... see Ant the "server-side" project
>
> So instead of accepting that we violate scope with more than half the jakarta
> projects people took to inventing reasons to keep them at jakarta. ie Ant
> became acceptable because it was a tool that could be used to build
> serverside projects. How silly is that reason?

Slightly revisionist.  Ant was part of the original charter for Jakarta.
There was a sister project named "Java" which contained a number of other
projects

Just to have a little fun (and this time, it is very intentional)... the
project I consider most "out of scope" is dvsl.  There is nothing server
specific about it, and has everything in the world to do with XML.  Check
it out for yourself: http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/dvsl/index.html .

I still maintain that scope is a distraction.  Community is what is
important.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 1:08 PM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> I would again try to get is to consider that we have a great chance to use a
> strong community to anchor a new project.  Jakarta can't grow forever.
> 
> When do you decide to actually step up and try to make a change?  I hope
> it's *before* the outside perception of Jakarta changes from that of a place
> of high-quality projects with strong communities and colorful characters, to
> Apache Sourceforge for Java.

And I want to add something for the record, as I am frustrated and will try
(try!) to shut up :

This has nothing to do with the relative merits of POI.

I am sure, given the clarity of thought and debate from Andrew, as well as
the support from Stefano, that it will be a swell addition to the Jakarta
fold.

I was just using it as a platform for the topic I really want to discuss.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the
freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 12:56 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:57, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> So the problematic part of the conversation is that we are hung up on the
>> literal semantics behind the words 'client' and 'server' and would be good
>> to explore that.
> 
> Or maybe "we" should just recognize that use of those terms is relatively
> arbitrary for many (most?) of the jakarta projects and throw it away
> completely? 

Fine by me.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 12:48 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:01, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Maybe we could just start having sub-catgories within Jakarta. So
>>> basically Jakarta is still the top level project but we have a software
>>> map underneath it that categorizes project (ie tools, xml parserns,
>>> servers, whatever).
>> 
>> How then would this work?  What about the non-Java stuff in XML land?
>> Where does that go?
> 
> You mean there is non-java stuff in xml land?  much like there is
> non-java stuff in jakarta-land? Why does it have to go anywhere?

I noted earlier there in non-java stuff here.

I bring this up because this thread is *specifically* (at this point) about
modifying the charter to strike the word 'server' to open the scope to
include non-server technology.

Now, since you agreed this was a good thing with your "+1" I assumed that
you think that the specific of the charter means something.

Therefore 'Java' is something we should consider, as we are then again
automatically out of scope with out own charter.

I personally don't care as much about legalistic conformance to the charter
per se - its an important guideline, but the community is what really
matters.  You can't force volunteers anyway.


> 
>> Again, you might think the above is flip, but you are talking about
>> modifying the charter here...
> 
> The charter was modified ages ago. Sure the words haven't changed but it has
> been a long time since jakarta project was actually true to the words in its
> charter ... see Ant the "server-side" project

And I keep bringing that up for consideration every few months.  Even just
at the level of organizing the site better to help people visiting us to see
what we do.

> 
> So instead of accepting that we violate scope with more than half the jakarta
> projects people took to inventing reasons to keep them at jakarta. ie Ant
> became acceptable because it was a tool that could be used to build
> serverside projects. How silly is that reason?


I am not disagreeing.

 
> I have always been of the opinion that scope is a STUPID way to manage this
> sort of thing because it will inevitably lead to stifling of community or
> arbitrary violation. Rather than delluding ourselves wouldn't better to
> disregard scope and instead have a "focus".
> 
> We "focus" on java products. Traditionally they are serverside and would
> likely to remain so (because you need a PMC sponsor/champion for new projects
> and most PMC members are serverside peeps). However I would have no problem
> if someone wanted to have other similarly focused projects - even if they
> were clienside or written in c or whatever.

And with the recent suggestion to get rid of the PMC and just do it via
group consensus, then what?  No more PMC champion.  And without the PMC, I
suspect no more Jakarta if Roy hasn't changed his mind.

 
> For instance if IBM wanted to donate jikes to Apache and there was enough
> community to support it - would you knock it back because it was C? or would
> you reclassify it as a compiler used to build serverside java apps?

No, I think it would be great.  However, it's not clear that we dump
everything with a .java file into Jakarta though.  That would be another
great 'anchor project' to build a new project around.

 
> What happens if the Jext or JEdit editors (or the merge if it ever occurs)
> wanted to join in Jakarta and had a like-minded community - would you knock
> it back because it was clientside? or would you reclassify it as something
> used to write serverside apps?

I would again try to get is to consider that we have a great chance to use a
strong community to anchor a new project.  Jakarta can't grow forever.

When do you decide to actually step up and try to make a change?  I hope
it's *before* the outside perception of Jakarta changes from that of a place
of high-quality projects with strong communities and colorful characters, to
Apache Sourceforge for Java.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Be a giant.  Take giant steps.  Do giant things...


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:06, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> So, the word "server-side" might require some further clarification, but
> removing it completely is not just a cosmetic change. It means opening the
> flood-gates.

The "flood gates" were opened long ago. Maintianing things like Ant & Oro & 
Avalon/Framework are "serverside" is pure fantasy. Given a project that 
satisfies the requirements jakarta has for newprojects - I can't recall 
anyone being knocked back.

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*-*
| For those who refuse to understand, no explanation  |
| will ever suffice. For those who refuse to believe, |
| no evidence will ever suffice.  |
*-*

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:57, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> So the problematic part of the conversation is that we are hung up on the
> literal semantics behind the words 'client' and 'server' and would be good
> to explore that.

Or maybe "we" should just recognize that use of those terms is relatively 
arbitrary for many (most?) of the jakarta projects and throw it away 
completely? 

-- 
Cheers,

Pete


 I just got lost in thought... It was unfamiliar territory.



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 12:40 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> I'll continue to swim upstream.
>> 
>> Take POI, Ant, BCEL, Oro, Regexp and make that the core of a new
>> client-side project...
> 
> wouldn't all those projects be out of scope of a client-side project as none
> of them are client-side?

This brings up something that I said before,  brought out by Paulo.

I didn't mean 'client' in the client/server sense, as swing components (an
example I offered in the beginning) isn't client in the client/server sense.

So the problematic part of the conversation is that we are hung up on the
literal semantics behind the words 'client' and 'server' and would be good
to explore that.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:01, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > Maybe we could just start having sub-catgories within Jakarta. So
> > basically Jakarta is still the top level project but we have a software
> > map underneath it that categorizes project (ie tools, xml parserns,
> > servers, whatever).
>
> How then would this work?  What about the non-Java stuff in XML land? 
> Where does that go?

You mean there is non-java stuff in xml land?  much like there is 
non-java stuff in jakarta-land? Why does it have to go anywhere?

> Again, you might think the above is flip, but you are talking about
> modifying the charter here...

The charter was modified ages ago. Sure the words haven't changed but it has 
been a long time since jakarta project was actually true to the words in its 
charter ... see Ant the "server-side" project

So instead of accepting that we violate scope with more than half the jakarta 
projects people took to inventing reasons to keep them at jakarta. ie Ant 
became acceptable because it was a tool that could be used to build 
serverside projects. How silly is that reason?

I have always been of the opinion that scope is a STUPID way to manage this 
sort of thing because it will inevitably lead to stifling of community or 
arbitrary violation. Rather than delluding ourselves wouldn't better to 
disregard scope and instead have a "focus". 

We "focus" on java products. Traditionally they are serverside and would 
likely to remain so (because you need a PMC sponsor/champion for new projects 
and most PMC members are serverside peeps). However I would have no problem 
if someone wanted to have other similarly focused projects - even if they 
were clienside or written in c or whatever.

For instance if IBM wanted to donate jikes to Apache and there was enough 
community to support it - would you knock it back because it was C? or would 
you reclassify it as a compiler used to build serverside java apps?

What happens if the Jext or JEdit editors (or the merge if it ever occurs) 
wanted to join in Jakarta and had a like-minded community - would you knock 
it back because it was clientside? or would you reclassify it as something 
used to write serverside apps?

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*--*
The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person 
has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick 
enough so he no longer feels the pain. 
   -- Alan Cooper, The Inmates are Running the Asylum 
*--*

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I'll continue to swim upstream.
>
> Take POI, Ant, BCEL, Oro, Regexp and make that the core of a new
> client-side project...

wouldn't all those projects be out of scope of a client-side project as none 
of them are client-side? 

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*--*
| "Common sense is the collection of prejudices|
|  acquired by age 18. " -Albert Einstein  |
*--*

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> I'll continue to swim upstream.
>
> Take POI, Ant, BCEL, Oro, Regexp and make that the core of a new client-side
> project...

Our e-mails crossed in the ether.  My point: the above needs a champion.
And the proposal needs to be supported by the committers of the affected
code bases.  Ask the committers of these projects if this is what they
want.  The last time I asked, Ant overwhelmingly wanted to remain in
Jakarta.

POI has so far made it very clear that they feel like they belong on the
server side.

I would imagine that BCEL would find this distinction between client and
server as rather arbitrary.  But if pressed, would probably find that they
are used more often on the server than on the client.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 11:38 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:25, Ted Husted wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> I think Roy's reaction is highly predicatable, and should be anticipated.
>>> 
 From http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html :
 
   Roy identified two potential showstoppers and (1) if there
   was overlap with other PMCs (example: Cocoon), and (2) if the new
   proposed PMC could not demonstrate that there is adequate coverage.
>> 
>> Sam, when you do this "cheshire cat" thing, I'm never sure what you are
>> insinuating.
> 
> Im glad I'm not the only one that happens to ;)

Drives me up the wall :)

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> I think Roy's reaction is highly predicatable, and should be anticipated.
> >From http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html :
>
> >   Roy identified two potential showstoppers and (1) if there
> >   was overlap with other PMCs (example: Cocoon), and (2) if the new
> >   proposed PMC could not demonstrate that there is adequate coverage.
>
> Sam, when you do this "cheshire cat" thing, I'm never sure what you are
> insinuating.

It wasn't intentional.  At least not this time...  ;-)

> I could see Roy saying no, because he believed Jakarta was too big last
> year.
>
> Or, I could see Roy saying yes, because he deeply believes
> decision-making should be pushed down.
>
> Since this is a meritocracy, and we are doing the work of Jakarta, Roy's
> core belief in meritocracy could outweigh his personal inclinations. Or
> not, I really can't say.
>
> I've never spoken to Roy about this myself, and all I know is what I see
> in the public emails.

Roy does appear to believe that the project is too big.  But then again, he
appears comfortable with the size of the board which obviously has a might
wider scope.  I do believe that if we demonstrated enough of an internal
structure, we could address this issue.

> The other thing that went around last year implied that we could
> fragment Jakarta or change its scope. We then trebled the size of the
> PMC, but apparently skirted the scope issue.

The overlapping scope issue is actually the one I meant to highlight.  I
think it would reopen the question as to how we justify the split between
Jakarta and XML.

FYI: Last time, we got away with this by talking about the expressed
desires of the subprojects.  Ant was specifically called out, and was
explicitly polled, and at the time the poll was taken, the overwhelming
consensus was that they did not want to get split out.

My feeling is that community comes first.  If Ant or any other code base or
collection of code bases wanted to split out into a separate community, I
would actively work to not only work to make it happen, I would work to
adjust the scope accordingly.  Similarly, if POI or any other code base
actively wanted to join Jakarta and we felt it was compatible with the
community, then I would fight to make whatever adjustments to the charter
that were required to make this happen.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 03:35 07.01.2002 +1100, you wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:08, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>> Some of the existing projects within Jakarta are server-side only, others
>> are client-side as well as server-side, none are client-side only. 
>
>except for JMeter ?

Well, JMeter is a client application to test the performance of a web server. It can't 
do anything else but test a server. So imho it's more "server-side" than many other 
projects we currently have. 

Server-side software in the case of Jakarta means software that is commonly executed 
by servers, most notably within servlet containers. This may include software that 
runs on the client but excludes software that runs *only* on client.

So, the word "server-side" might require some further clarification, but removing it 
completely is not just a cosmetic change. It means opening the flood-gates. 


--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 10:29 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ted Husted wrote:
>> (1) That we petition the ASF to change our charter and remove the word
>> "server", so what we are simply charged with providing production
>> quality solutions on the Java platform.
>> 
>> [I'd link to our charter, but can't find the ASF minutes any more, and
>> don't know where else it was published.]
> 
> Found our copy at least --
> 
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-03-19-meeting-summary.html
> 
> at 2.1
> 
> So I'm thinking we might propose that our charter be amended to
> 
>   RESOLVED, that the Jakarta Project Management Committee be and
>   hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of
> -1  commercial-quality, open-source, server-side solutions for the Java
> +1  commercial-quality, open-source solutions for the Java
>   Platform based on software licensed to the Foundation; and be it
>   further
> 
> So that Ant, BCEL, and whatever would no longer be out of scope, and we
> could also consider client-side Java packages when they are proposed.

I'll continue to swim upstream.

Take POI, Ant, BCEL, Oro, Regexp and make that the core of a new client-side
project...

Not that I think little of Ant, Oro, BCEL and Regexp - actually the converse
- I think that they are valuable assets, so I don't say this lightly. I lurk
on the Ant list, and know for certain it's a vibrant, active, productive
community, and I know that it would be a great anchor for a new project -
it's full of people steeped in the jakarta tradition, would be an attractor
to users because of the popularity of ant.

However, I still worry about the effects on Jakarta.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Be a giant.  Take giant steps.  Do giant things...


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 10:17 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:22, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On 1/6/02 8:06 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
 I thought I would share, as my thinking about removing community
 containers here in Jakarta, XML et al resonates well this.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I just think its mainly a matter of packaging. By
>>> definination, we are all trying to share the same ASF culture, though
>>> each codebase will have its own flavor.
>> 
>> If you really believe this, then the right thing is to get rid of *all*
>> containers :
>> 
>>  Jakarta +  HTTPD + XML + TCL + PHP + APR + Perl
> 
> I have no idea about them but in the case of Jakarta-XML there is
> considerable cross-talk. All XML projects use some jakarta technologies and
> most (all?) jakarta projects use XML technologies.
> 
> I doubt that could be said about TCL and Perl or PHP and APR etc.
> 
>>> Lumping everything together under one heading tends to confuse human
>>> beings. I think the projects, like XML and Jakarta, make for useful
>>> headings, mainly because that how people conceptualize entities like
>>> this.
>> 
>> And there is no difference in culture?
> 
> No different than what we already have here. I have to think in very
> different ways when I contribute to ant as opposed to Avalon because they
> have a very different philosophy.
> 
>> I don't know the answer, but watching the discussion about XML lately, I
>> would think that there *are* differences, so there must be *something* to
>> it.
> 
> What was the specific point that made you think XML is somehow different from
> jakarta?
> 
>>> (1) That we petition the ASF to change our charter and remove the word
>>> "server", so what we are simply charged with providing production
>>> quality solutions on the Java platform.
> 
> +1
> 
>> I would like to see some opinions on the idea of working to form another
>> apache subproject focused on the client side and if anyone thinks that
>> makes sense.
> 
> Maybe we could just start having sub-catgories within Jakarta. So basically
> Jakarta is still the top level project but we have a software map underneath
> it that categorizes project (ie tools, xml parserns, servers, whatever).

How then would this work?  What about the non-Java stuff in XML land?  Where
does that go?

Will you say that it should here in violation of the newly modified charter?
Or do you then go back to the charter and remove 'Java' from it too?

So then we change the charter to be "providing production quality solutions"
which is pretty vague and somewhat Dilbert-esque.

Maybe we can get 'software' or there somewhere, or specifically exclude
movies and audio.

Again, you might think the above is flip, but you are talking about
modifying the charter here...


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Be a giant.  Take giant steps.  Do giant things...


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:25, Ted Husted wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > I think Roy's reaction is highly predicatable, and should be anticipated.
> >
> > >From http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html :
> > >
> > >   Roy identified two potential showstoppers and (1) if there
> > >   was overlap with other PMCs (example: Cocoon), and (2) if the new
> > >   proposed PMC could not demonstrate that there is adequate coverage.
>
> Sam, when you do this "cheshire cat" thing, I'm never sure what you are
> insinuating.

Im glad I'm not the only one that happens to ;)

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

--
 Mark Twain: "In the real world, the right thing never
happens in the right place at the right time. It is 
the task of journalists and historians to rectify 
this error."
--

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 03:08, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Some of the existing projects within Jakarta are server-side only, others
> are client-side as well as server-side, none are client-side only. 

except for JMeter ?

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

---
|  I thought there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence.  |
|  There's a knob called "brightness", but it doesn't work.   |
---


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> I think Roy's reaction is highly predicatable, and should be anticipated.
> >From http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html :
> 
> >   Roy identified two potential showstoppers and (1) if there
> >   was overlap with other PMCs (example: Cocoon), and (2) if the new
> >   proposed PMC could not demonstrate that there is adequate coverage.

Sam, when you do this "cheshire cat" thing, I'm never sure what you are
insinuating. 

I could see Roy saying no, because he believed Jakarta was too big last
year. 

Or, I could see Roy saying yes, because he deeply believes
decision-making should be pushed down. 

Since this is a meritocracy, and we are doing the work of Jakarta, Roy's
core belief in meritocracy could outweigh his personal inclinations. Or
not, I really can't say.

I've never spoken to Roy about this myself, and all I know is what I see
in the public emails. 

The other thing that went around last year implied that we could
fragment Jakarta or change its scope. We then trebled the size of the
PMC, but apparently skirted the scope issue. 

"When the documentation and code disagree, both are usually wrong."

-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 10:29 06.01.2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Ted Husted wrote:
>> (1) That we petition the ASF to change our charter and remove the word
>> "server", so what we are simply charged with providing production
>> quality solutions on the Java platform.
>> 
>> [I'd link to our charter, but can't find the ASF minutes any more, and
>> don't know where else it was published.]
>
>Found our copy at least -- 
>
>http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-03-19-meeting-summary.html
>
>at 2.1
>
>So I'm thinking we might propose that our charter be amended to 
>
>RESOLVED, that the Jakarta Project Management Committee be and
>hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of
>-1  commercial-quality, open-source, server-side solutions for the Java
>+1  commercial-quality, open-source solutions for the Java
>Platform based on software licensed to the Foundation; and be it
>further

Some of the existing projects within Jakarta are server-side only, others are 
client-side as well as server-side, none are client-side only. Removing the 
"server-side" restriction would allow strictly client side applications such as word 
processors, editors, spread sheet programs, etc. into jakarta. 

Rewording of the charter is perhaps appropriate but completely removing the 
"server-side" restriction is not. I consequently vote -1 on the proposed change. 


>So that Ant, BCEL, and whatever would no longer be out of scope, and we
>could also consider client-side Java packages when they are proposed. 

Would you care to propose a different wording? 


--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

Peter Donald wrote:
>
>>> Alternatively, perhaps we might consider something like a public
>>> "apache-projects" list, where all the PMCs would meet and discuss
issues
>>> like this, and conduct the formal votes, and let the general lists
>>> revert back to a chat room.
>
> I can't see the PHP people being too interested in that :)

I can name one PHP person who would be.  ;-)

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

 Ted Husted wrote:
 >
 > So I'm thinking we might propose that our charter be amended to
>
> RESOLVED, that the Jakarta Project Management Committee be and
> hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of
> -1  commercial-quality, open-source, server-side solutions for the Java
> +1  commercial-quality, open-source solutions for the Java
> Platform based on software licensed to the Foundation; and be it
> further

I think Roy's reaction is highly predicatable, and should be anticipated.
>From http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html :

>   Roy identified two potential showstoppers and (1) if there
>   was overlap with other PMCs (example: Cocoon), and (2) if the new
>   proposed PMC could not demonstrate that there is adequate coverage.

 - Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

Ted Husted wrote:
> (1) That we petition the ASF to change our charter and remove the word
> "server", so what we are simply charged with providing production
> quality solutions on the Java platform.
> 
> [I'd link to our charter, but can't find the ASF minutes any more, and
> don't know where else it was published.]

Found our copy at least -- 

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-03-19-meeting-summary.html

at 2.1

So I'm thinking we might propose that our charter be amended to 

RESOLVED, that the Jakarta Project Management Committee be and
hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of
-1  commercial-quality, open-source, server-side solutions for the Java
+1  commercial-quality, open-source solutions for the Java
Platform based on software licensed to the Foundation; and be it
further

So that Ant, BCEL, and whatever would no longer be out of scope, and we
could also consider client-side Java packages when they are proposed. 


-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:22, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On 1/6/02 8:06 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> >> I thought I would share, as my thinking about removing community
> >> containers here in Jakarta, XML et al resonates well this.
> >
> > Personally, I just think its mainly a matter of packaging. By
> > definination, we are all trying to share the same ASF culture, though
> > each codebase will have its own flavor.
>
> If you really believe this, then the right thing is to get rid of *all*
> containers :
>
>  Jakarta +  HTTPD + XML + TCL + PHP + APR + Perl

I have no idea about them but in the case of Jakarta-XML there is 
considerable cross-talk. All XML projects use some jakarta technologies and 
most (all?) jakarta projects use XML technologies.

I doubt that could be said about TCL and Perl or PHP and APR etc.

> > Lumping everything together under one heading tends to confuse human
> > beings. I think the projects, like XML and Jakarta, make for useful
> > headings, mainly because that how people conceptualize entities like
> > this.
>
> And there is no difference in culture?

No different than what we already have here. I have to think in very 
different ways when I contribute to ant as opposed to Avalon because they 
have a very different philosophy.

> I don't know the answer, but watching the discussion about XML lately, I
> would think that there *are* differences, so there must be *something* to
> it.

What was the specific point that made you think XML is somehow different from 
jakarta?

> > (1) That we petition the ASF to change our charter and remove the word
> > "server", so what we are simply charged with providing production
> > quality solutions on the Java platform.

+1

> I would like to see some opinions on the idea of working to form another
> apache subproject focused on the client side and if anyone thinks that
> makes sense.

Maybe we could just start having sub-catgories within Jakarta. So basically 
Jakarta is still the top level project but we have a software map underneath 
it that categorizes project (ie tools, xml parserns, servers, whatever).

> > (2) That we ask XML if they would like to merge our general lists, so we
> > can more easily discuss matters like this. I'm happy to have POI here,
> > but would really like to know how XML feels about it.
> >
> > Alternatively, perhaps we might consider something like a public
> > "apache-projects" list, where all the PMCs would meet and discuss issues
> > like this, and conduct the formal votes, and let the general lists
> > revert back to a chat room.

I can't see the PHP people being too interested in that :) The only people 
who may be interested being XML peeps ... which kinda supports the stance 
that they aren't all that different from jakarta

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

-
 We shall not cease from exploration, and the 
  end of all our exploring will be to arrive 
 where we started and know the place for the 
first time -- T.S. Eliot
-

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

This might also make for interesting background reading:

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-01-17-meeting-minutes.html


-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

Ooops, should have been 

> I believe that the subcultures exist mainly at the subproject level. The
> PROJECTS, like many states and provinces are, simply granfalloons.
  
> 
> http://www.kcoyle.net/granfalloons.html

-T.


Ted Husted wrote:
> 
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> >
> > On 1/6/02 8:06 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> > >> I thought I would share, as my thinking about removing community containers
> > >> here in Jakarta, XML et al resonates well this.
> > >
> > > Personally, I just think its mainly a matter of packaging. By
> > > definination, we are all trying to share the same ASF culture, though
> > > each codebase will have its own flavor.
> >
> > If you really believe this, then the right thing is to get rid of *all*
> > containers :
> >
> >  Jakarta +  HTTPD + XML + TCL + PHP + APR + Perl
> 
> I believe that the subcultures exist mainly at the subproject level. The
> subprojects, like many states and provinces are, simply granfalloons.
> 
> http://www.kcoyle.net/granfalloons.html
> 
> I believe the projects are useful as an organizational entity, but have
> little impact on the culture of a subproject. If the two were at
> varience, the subproject would fork. People do not join the "project",
> they join the subproject. The projects are happenstance, but they are
> useful as an organizational convenience.
> 
> I also believe that the PMCs themselves should be seen as an
> organizational entity, and conversations like this should be taking
> place on a public apache-projects list that all PMCs would be invited to
> join and use for PMC business.
> 
> It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation about POI, or
> RPC-XML, or the others that have come up, when the other PMCs are not
> part of the discussion.
> 
> -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
> -- Building Java web applications with Struts.
> -- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
> -- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

"Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> 
> On 1/6/02 8:06 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> >> I thought I would share, as my thinking about removing community containers
> >> here in Jakarta, XML et al resonates well this.
> >
> > Personally, I just think its mainly a matter of packaging. By
> > definination, we are all trying to share the same ASF culture, though
> > each codebase will have its own flavor.
> 
> If you really believe this, then the right thing is to get rid of *all*
> containers :
> 
>  Jakarta +  HTTPD + XML + TCL + PHP + APR + Perl

I believe that the subcultures exist mainly at the subproject level. The
subprojects, like many states and provinces are, simply granfalloons. 

http://www.kcoyle.net/granfalloons.html

I believe the projects are useful as an organizational entity, but have
little impact on the culture of a subproject. If the two were at
varience, the subproject would fork. People do not join the "project",
they join the subproject. The projects are happenstance, but they are
useful as an organizational convenience.

I also believe that the PMCs themselves should be seen as an
organizational entity, and conversations like this should be taking
place on a public apache-projects list that all PMCs would be invited to
join and use for PMC business. 

It is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation about POI, or
RPC-XML, or the others that have come up, when the other PMCs are not
part of the discussion. 


-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 8:15 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 1/6/02 3:52 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:10, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> I was leafing through my copy of "A Pattern Language" by Alexander,
>>> Ishikawa and Silverstein, which is really about architecture of human
>>> habitat (buildings and environs), and ran across some interesting
>>> assertions about society and groups.
>> 
>> good book.
>> 
>>> The summary for me is that I think that the Apache sub communities are
>>> valuable, and should be kept.
>> 
>> ok. 
>> 
>> I guess thats one reading of it but if anything the snippets you provided
>> seem to me to encourage merging of XML and jakarta if anything ;)
>> 
>> Effectively XML/Jakarta would become a single city with a mosaic of
>> subcultures. Already we have different sub-cultures which are effectively
>> defined by the committers - when a committer is a member of multiple projects
>> they tend to imbue the projects with their own "culture".
> 
> Apache is a single city with a mosaic of subcultures, some of which might be
> really different in their interests and behaviors, and some are very much
> alike.  Because we are all under one umbrella, and we have open, porous
> borders, we are free to visit and even belong to other  subcultures as well.

Or you can say, better, that Apache is a country, with the Apache projects
(Jakarta, XML, PHP) as the cities, each with a mosaic of subcultures (the
subprojects : Velocity, Struts, Staglibs, Tomcat, Turbine...)

However, this to me seems somewhat scale-invariant, because you  have within
each subculture identifiable subcultures as well - I always think that there
are different subgroups in tomcat, 4.x and 3.x (note *not* 4.x vs 3.x),
turbine has subprojects (I am a member of small one, but not participatory
in the 'main' Turbine project...

Also - in human culture, where you then go down to specific neighborhood and
then families.

One might argue that cities merging is a natural thing, as that's how how
villages become towns become cities.  But do cities really ever merge? (W/o
the intervention of people like Robert Moses - the social downside to his
transportation engineering projects in the NY metro area was *huge* -
totally destroyed neighborhoods...)

I guess what I am arguing is that culture and community is an organic thing
and we have to be careful what kind of 'engineering' we apply to it.

Hm.

> 
>> 
>> However I guess you were trying to support the exact opposit view so I will
>> shut up now ;)
>> 
> 
> Don't shut up, but yes indeed I was  :)

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 8:06 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
>> I thought I would share, as my thinking about removing community containers
>> here in Jakarta, XML et al resonates well this.
> 
> Personally, I just think its mainly a matter of packaging. By
> definination, we are all trying to share the same ASF culture, though
> each codebase will have its own flavor.

If you really believe this, then the right thing is to get rid of *all*
containers : 

 Jakarta +  HTTPD + XML + TCL + PHP + APR + Perl


> 
> Lumping everything together under one heading tends to confuse human
> beings. I think the projects, like XML and Jakarta, make for useful
> headings, mainly because that how people conceptualize entities like
> this. 

And there is no difference in culture?

I don't know the answer, but watching the discussion about XML lately, I
would think that there *are* differences, so there must be *something* to
it.

> 
> I think both XML and Java/Jakarta make for fine headings. This is
> overlap between them, but that happens.
> 
> Moving forward, I might suggest that both Projects ask themselves what
> type of products they want to carry on their homepage. Should XML be
> just XML-based, or XML and document-based. Does it confuse people to
> find product like Batik listed there?
> 
> Should Jakarta products all have strong ties to server-side
> technologies? Or is just being Java good enough?
> 
> If we think of XML as a document-based technology, then it could make
> sense to see projects like Alexandria, Jetspeed, and Slide under XML --
> especially since XML already hosts SOAP and RPC-XML. Likewise, it could
> also make sense for Batik, FOP, and Xang to be under the Jakarta
> umbrella. And, given an XML-Commons, should not the Digester live there,
> with other XML tools?
> 
> Realistically, many of these placements have been the coincidence of
> where a committer was already involved. It's easier to bring things up
> on a list to which you are already subscribed. So we do.
> 
> So two concrete actions I would suggest for now are:
> 
> (1) That we petition the ASF to change our charter and remove the word
> "server", so what we are simply charged with providing production
> quality solutions on the Java platform.

I would like to see some opinions on the idea of working to form another
apache subproject focused on the client side and if anyone thinks that makes
sense.

> 
> [I'd link to our charter, but can't find the ASF minutes any more, and
> don't know where else it was published.]
> 
> (2) That we ask XML if they would like to merge our general lists, so we
> can more easily discuss matters like this. I'm happy to have POI here,
> but would really like to know how XML feels about it.
> 
> Alternatively, perhaps we might consider something like a public
> "apache-projects" list, where all the PMCs would meet and discuss issues
> like this, and conduct the formal votes, and let the general lists
> revert back to a chat room.
> 
> 
> -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
> -- Building Java web applications with Struts.
> -- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
> -- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"We will be judged not by the monuments we build, but by the monuments we
destroy" - Ada Louise Huxtable


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/6/02 3:52 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:10, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> I was leafing through my copy of "A Pattern Language" by Alexander,
>> Ishikawa and Silverstein, which is really about architecture of human
>> habitat (buildings and environs), and ran across some interesting
>> assertions about society and groups.
> 
> good book.
> 
>> The summary for me is that I think that the Apache sub communities are
>> valuable, and should be kept.
> 
> ok. 
> 
> I guess thats one reading of it but if anything the snippets you provided
> seem to me to encourage merging of XML and jakarta if anything ;)
> 
> Effectively XML/Jakarta would become a single city with a mosaic of
> subcultures. Already we have different sub-cultures which are effectively
> defined by the committers - when a committer is a member of multiple projects
> they tend to imbue the projects with their own "culture".

Apache is a single city with a mosaic of subcultures, some of which might be
really different in their interests and behaviors, and some are very much
alike.  Because we are all under one umbrella, and we have open, porous
borders, we are free to visit and even belong to other  subcultures as well.

> 
> However I guess you were trying to support the exact opposit view so I will
> shut up now ;)
> 

Don't shut up, but yes indeed I was  :)

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"He who throws mud only loses ground." - Fat Albert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

"Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> I thought I would share, as my thinking about removing community containers
> here in Jakarta, XML et al resonates well this.  

Personally, I just think its mainly a matter of packaging. By
definination, we are all trying to share the same ASF culture, though
each codebase will have its own flavor.

Lumping everything together under one heading tends to confuse human
beings. I think the projects, like XML and Jakarta, make for useful
headings, mainly because that how people conceptualize entities like
this. 

I think both XML and Java/Jakarta make for fine headings. This is
overlap between them, but that happens. 

Moving forward, I might suggest that both Projects ask themselves what
type of products they want to carry on their homepage. Should XML be
just XML-based, or XML and document-based. Does it confuse people to
find product like Batik listed there?

Should Jakarta products all have strong ties to server-side
technologies? Or is just being Java good enough? 

If we think of XML as a document-based technology, then it could make
sense to see projects like Alexandria, Jetspeed, and Slide under XML --
especially since XML already hosts SOAP and RPC-XML. Likewise, it could
also make sense for Batik, FOP, and Xang to be under the Jakarta
umbrella. And, given an XML-Commons, should not the Digester live there,
with other XML tools?

Realistically, many of these placements have been the coincidence of
where a committer was already involved. It's easier to bring things up
on a list to which you are already subscribed. So we do.

So two concrete actions I would suggest for now are:

(1) That we petition the ASF to change our charter and remove the word
"server", so what we are simply charged with providing production
quality solutions on the Java platform. 

[I'd link to our charter, but can't find the ASF minutes any more, and
don't know where else it was published.]

(2) That we ask XML if they would like to merge our general lists, so we
can more easily discuss matters like this. I'm happy to have POI here,
but would really like to know how XML feels about it. 

Alternatively, perhaps we might consider something like a public
"apache-projects" list, where all the PMCs would meet and discuss issues
like this, and conduct the formal votes, and let the general lists
revert back to a chat room.


-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Ted Husted]

I agree except that I think the cities here are the subprojects, like
Velocity and Struts, and the projects, like Jakarta and XML, are just
arbitrary containers (lines on a map). Subprojects are like cities,
Projects are like states (or provinces), and ASF is the nation.

I don't think an individual's loyalty, or sense of identity, depends on
the Project, but to the subproject and the ASF. 

-Ted.

"Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> 
> I was leafing through my copy of "A Pattern Language" by Alexander, Ishikawa
> and Silverstein, which is really about architecture of human habitat
> (buildings and environs), and ran across some interesting assertions about
> society and groups.
> 
> I haven't read the book end to end, as I just pick it up and read bits and
> pieces, but I am generally struck by the validity of the basic insights
> expressed.
> 
> I thought I would share, as my thinking about removing community containers
> here in Jakarta, XML et al resonates well this.  There is nothing which says
> the following is any more valid than any other point of view expressed here,
> so this shouldn't be read as an appeal to some kind of 'authority' (like we
> *never* do that here...)  - just interesting as it comes from another
> intellectual discipline studying the exact problems we are trying to grapple
> with.
> 
> The summary for me is that I think that the Apache sub communities are
> valuable, and should be kept.
> 
> 
> 
> "The homogeneous and undifferentiated character of modern cities kills all
> varieties of life styles and arrests the growth of individual character."
> (p43)
> 
> Kind of general as the assertion, the text then talks about three kinds of
> structure, heterogeneous (bland and conformist),  ghetto (organized by
> economic or physical characteristics, traps and isolates groups), and mosaic
> of subcultures, the latter being the preference, with the conclusion :
> 
> "Do everything possible to enrich the cultures and subcultures of the city,
> by breaking the city, as far as possible, into a vast mosaic of small and
> different subcultures, each with it's own spatial territory, and each with
> the power to create it's own distinct life style.  Make sure that the
> subcultures are small enough so that each person has access to the full
> variety of life styles in the subcultures near his own."
> 
> I think the notion of "power to create it's own distinct lifestyle" is the
> important aspect that applies to the issue of disbanding the community
> boundaries distinguishing XML and Jakarta.
> 
> 
> 
> "Individuals have no effective voice in any community of more than 5,000 -
> 10,000 persons" (p 71)
> 
> While I don't think that the quantitative values are important, I think the
> fundamental idea is sound - in order for individual voices to be heard, the
> group has to be small enough.  The conclusion :
> 
> "Decentralize city governments in a way that gives local control to
> communities [...].  As nearly as possible, use natural geographic and
> historical boundaries to mark those communities.  Give each community the
> power to initiate, decide and execute the affairs that concern it closely."
> 
> I think I don't need to explain how this applies to us :)
> 
> 
> 
> There's more, but I'm beat.  Happy weekend. :)
> 
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> System and Software Consulting
> Be a giant.  Take giant steps.  Do giant things...
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Sam Ruby]

Peter Donald wrote:
>
> Effectively XML/Jakarta would become a single city with a mosaic of
> subcultures. Already we have different sub-cultures which are effectively
> defined by the committers - when a committer is a member of multiple projects
> they tend to imbue the projects with their own "culture".

With some committers being more viral than others, eh Peter?  ;-)

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Peter Donald]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:10, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I was leafing through my copy of "A Pattern Language" by Alexander,
> Ishikawa and Silverstein, which is really about architecture of human
> habitat (buildings and environs), and ran across some interesting
> assertions about society and groups.

good book.

> The summary for me is that I think that the Apache sub communities are
> valuable, and should be kept.

ok. 

I guess thats one reading of it but if anything the snippets you provided 
seem to me to encourage merging of XML and jakarta if anything ;)

Effectively XML/Jakarta would become a single city with a mosaic of 
subcultures. Already we have different sub-cultures which are effectively 
defined by the committers - when a committer is a member of multiple projects 
they tend to imbue the projects with their own "culture".

However I guess you were trying to support the exact opposit view so I will 
shut up now ;)


-- 
Cheers,

Pete

---
"Therefore it can be said that victorious warriors 
win first, and then go to battle, while defeated 
warriors go to battle first, and then seek to win." 
  - Sun Tzu, the Art Of War
---

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: