Hi Hen, Thanks for the description and the comparison with the Excalibur project related to inactivity/TLP. I would like to add two more metrics regarding inactivity-and-project-is-good versus inactivity-lack-of-active-developers. *Look at the bugtracker and see how many bugs have not been corrected over XXXX amount of time and/or corrected but the length it took to correct it (pending on the severity of the bug). *Has the project met it's goals and purpose? For Jakarta Slide, their goal and purpose is to store documents/files with metadata (with certain functionality such as delta-v and indexed metadata) and implement a WebDAV interface to access those documents. Is there more that can be done for these goals and purpose? >From a user standpoint, the bugtracker shows a lot of bugs, several of which >are 'critical', which haven't been touched in a while. Now, even if it has >already been corrected and not removed from bugtracker, that still shows room >for improvement before moving towards TLP. As for goals/purpose, I feel there >is still more to be done, as the 'core' of WebDAV interface may be complete >but there are other optional elements that could be implemented (my own >personal agenda includes <queryschema> ;-). There are also still quite a bit >of activity on the mailing list of 'I'm unable to do/use XXXXX' which may be >either documentation improvements or the actual need to improve the codebase. And, last but definately not least, is the split of userbase/developer-base between Jakarta Slide and Jakarta Jackrabbit - I still feel this is an important topic to consider, as they both have the same purpose (store documents with metadata), and the goals are very similar (both aim to be able to access documents in a standard way, such as WebDAV, while jackrabbit is also aiming for spec-compliance with the JCR API). my two coppers, -D
________________________________ From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 4/5/2006 6:02 PM To: Slide Developers Mailing List Subject: Why TLP? Was: [VOTE] Jakarta Slide -> slide.apache.org On 3/27/06, Guido Casper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +0 > > Sorry, I currently can't help out with anything. I'm not quite sure that > the Slide community is strong enough to have its own PMC. I'm not even > sure wether we currently have a release manager. But since you added > yourself to the PMC list I'm +0 instead of -0 :-) > > Guido > > PS: Out of curiosity, what do you aim for the Jakarta project to be > about? (just trying to understand) Mostly - aiming for Jakarta to be smaller and one community :) Currently this is in the direction of Jakarta being a repository of small Java components - it's the only direction I can come up with (and have not heard any others yet) that leads to a focused Jakarta project which can become a single healthy community. ---- Many have brought up the "we're too inactive to be a TLP" issue. There's no difference between TLP and S(econdary)LP when it comes down to activity - just that the inactivity would be clearer to the foundation. So I have come to feel that this really means "we like how we're currently hiding our inactivity". Calling a vote is a multi-use exercise - it can either be: * Resounding +1s * Resounding -1s/argument * Silence In the latter case, there's so little activity that a Jakarta subproject is unable to decide what to do (and unlikely to find anyone volunteering to be a chair [much less work being a chair of a small project]). We have 2 PMC +1s and one +0 so far, in a week and a half. Is there any reason to think that if a serious bug turned up, that there'd be anyone to deal with it? Inactivity is a problem for a subproject. Excalibur is proof that inactivity is not a problem for a TLP - the chair of the project reports to the board each quarter; mostly with the same "things are quite inactive" but sometimes with a bit of text about some recent noise. The board are aware of the inactivity, but also aware that things are being watched. So the 'Slide is inactive' part of this is very selfish on my behalf - I need to create a Slide subproject chair so that I can delegate the 'somebody is watching it' bit as I can't scope to watch the whole umbrella - especially if things get active; and without making the foundation a 3-tier system, I can only do that by getting Slide to have its own PMC. The TLP part is more about the health of Jakarta than Slide - while it's technically possible I think for Slide to have a PMC and be in Jakarta, it would be confusing to the Jakarta community - maybe not if we'd done that 3 years ago from the start, but I think it's too late to try that idea out now - we just need to finish the job of Jakarta deconstruction. 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]
