Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On 8 Dec 2003, at 11:10, Christopher Lenz wrote: Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig: Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic? I think it was a little of both. HttpClient was and continues to be rather heavy in traffic for a commons component, so some started to complain. The developers were okay with splitting off the mailing list, so it happened. I think this was also due to HttpClient being backed by a community separate from the rest of the Commons (i.e. none of the HttpClient contributors is working on other Commons components, IIRC). IIRC the httpclient committers volunteered after a lot of strong-arming from the rest of the commons. IMHO this was a big mistake. it would have been much better if httpclient had remained on the same list (for as long as it had remained in the commons). In my opinion, HttpClient would deserve promotion out of Commons by now, but that's a different topic altogether :-) +1 (but AFAIK no one's proposed it) (i suspect that httpclient would have been promoted already had we not made the misguided decision to split off a separate mailing list.) i've always thought that apache commons would be a perfect fit for httpclient... - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On 8 Dec 2003, at 21:07, Costin Manolache wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote: Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ). Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma. A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject. +1 to jakarta-wide karma. It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then maybe instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept: jakarta-bugs jakarta-announce jakarta-dev jakarta-pmc jakarta-ideas jakarta-site or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up. I don't see the relation between karma and mailing lists. +1 Jakarta does have 2 global lists ( jakarta-general and pmc ), and as many sub-project lists are needed. A subproject can create multiple lists if needed/wanted, like commons. i think that multiple lists divide the community and cause problems with oversight. my experience with jakarta commons is that a single list helps to create a community spirit and multiple lists divide this spirit. the avalon community are now strongly against multiple lists and turbine has moved this way also. i've read posts from people in both community expressing the opinion that multiple lists are unhealthy. Each jakarta committer can be on as many lists as he wants. It would be good to keep track of what lists each PMC member is reading currently, or to do something similar with commons, where people add themself to a list of active people when they are involved with a component. This will also answer the question who is monitoring this. seems reasonable. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On 8 Dec 2003, at 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote: snip Then maybe instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept: jakarta-bugs jakarta-announce jakarta-dev jakarta-pmc jakarta-ideas jakarta-site or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up. I understand that the oversight role of the PMC has to include all of Jakarta and I agree that some form of list aggregation/digesting might need to happen to make this practical. I don't think that combining all of the lists is the right way to do it though. This would certainly be a pain for users and contributors who may be interested in only a small number of projects. One way to attack the problem might be to have PMC members who are committers on the different Jakarta projects share the responsibility of maintaining list digests for periodic (weekly?) review by the full PMC and/or alerting the full PMC of any issues that require immediate attention. I guess the alternative would be for all of us to subscribe to all of the lists and take up speed reading ;-) i'd suggest that all new pmc members try subscribing to a number of jakarta lists that they are not committers for. ideally, subscribe to all dev lists and see just how many posts there are even (if you stay on them all only for a few days). it gives a good sense of perspective. if every new pmc member decided to subscribe to just one or two extra lists, then we'd be along way towards solving our current problems with demonstrating oversight (by spreading the load more evenly, we'll eliminate single points of failure). i'd be interested to see the current coverage (in terms of pmc members subscribed to jakarta dev lists). Apologies if this is old ground. I am new to the PMC. it's probably old ground but i'm not sure that we've come up with any good solutions yet :) questions and ideas will therefore be gratefully received :) - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be very noisy, indeed. Szre. Here are some stats from October (from message counts displayed at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com) struts tomcat commons user 3115 2908 375 dev 759 1131 2112 I guess you could remove half of struts user if we added a jakarta-friday list 8-) Seriously, combining the user lists is not desirable at all IMHO, as our users probably don't care too much for the projects they don't use. Let's look at the dev lists using nagoya's eyebrowse installation and looking at the number of mails in Nevember 2003: Alexandria 3 BCEL 12 BSF8 Cactus 173 Commons 2061 Commons-HTTP-Client 379 ECS0 Jetspeed 283 JMeter 276 Gump 292 (*) Log4J146 Lucene 164 ORO3 Pluto112 POI 213 Regexp21 Slide724 Struts 431 Taglibs 35 Tapestry 110 Tomcat 982 Turbine 271 Turbine-JCS 10 Velocity 244 I think there are more lists than that. (*) using MARC as Gump is not listed in eyebrowse. OK, the total is 6953, more than three times the traffic of commons-dev. This is unless we'd really split the lists into separate lists for bug reports, commits and ideas (I'm not sure I'd like that idea). Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic? Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig: Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic? I think it was a little of both. HttpClient was and continues to be rather heavy in traffic for a commons component, so some started to complain. The developers were okay with splitting off the mailing list, so it happened. I think this was also due to HttpClient being backed by a community separate from the rest of the Commons (i.e. none of the HttpClient contributors is working on other Commons components, IIRC). In my opinion, HttpClient would deserve promotion out of Commons by now, but that's a different topic altogether :-) Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Lenz /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote: Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ). Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma. A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject. +1 to jakarta-wide karma. It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then maybe instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept: jakarta-bugs jakarta-announce jakarta-dev jakarta-pmc jakarta-ideas jakarta-site or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Henri Yandell wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote: Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ). Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma. A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject. +1 to jakarta-wide karma. It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. It would be very noisy, indeed. Here are some stats from October (from message counts displayed at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com) struts tomcat commons user 3115 2908 375 dev 759 1131 2112 Then maybe instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept: jakarta-bugs jakarta-announce jakarta-dev jakarta-pmc jakarta-ideas jakarta-site or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up. I understand that the oversight role of the PMC has to include all of Jakarta and I agree that some form of list aggregation/digesting might need to happen to make this practical. I don't think that combining all of the lists is the right way to do it though. This would certainly be a pain for users and contributors who may be interested in only a small number of projects. One way to attack the problem might be to have PMC members who are committers on the different Jakarta projects share the responsibility of maintaining list digests for periodic (weekly?) review by the full PMC and/or alerting the full PMC of any issues that require immediate attention. I guess the alternative would be for all of us to subscribe to all of the lists and take up speed reading ;-) Apologies if this is old ground. I am new to the PMC. Phil Hen - 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]
