This is about creating the healthiest Apache environment for fostering creative ongoing SDO Java development.
The feedback from Apache members to the proposal I put forward for a new project, was that it was too tightly scoped around JSR 235. In order to broaden the scope of the new project proposal, and yet not split the pool of potential Apache contributors to this technology, I am asking the Tuscany community if it is prepared to drop the explicit reference to SDO. This would seem to be a necessary step before going back to the Apache community with a broader scoped proposal for the new project, since it is clear that we would get objections on the basis that the pool of potential contributors would be split across the two Apache projects. So as I mentioned before, implicit in this change to the charter is the understanding that if another Apache other project is established with an explicit remit for SDO Java development, then we would work towards ensuring that new development happened in that new project. I believe I need to be able to point to the changed draft charter, and to point to discussions that demonstrate a willingness on the part of the Tuscany community to be prepared to act in the spirit of these discussions, if the new project is to stand a chance of being accepted into incubation. Kelvin. On 28/02/2008, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > kelvin goodson wrote: > > Implicit in this rewording is the understanding within the Tuscany > community > > that there would be one Apache home for SDO Java development. When > this > > thread is referenced in proposal for the new project, or discussions > around > > it, it must be clear to the wider Apache community that the Tuscany > > community accepts that. Without this clear acceptance I fear the new > > project will face further periods of delay whilst questions are asked > about > > the Tuscany communities intentions with regards to SDO Java development. > > > > So the answer to your question is conditional. > > If the new project is accepted an an incubator .... > > > > - does not require Tuscany to implement SDO anymore --- yes > > - and still allows Tuscany to implement SDO --- no > > - and still allows Tuscany to use SDO or any other related technology? > --- > > yes > > > > if the project is not accepted as an incubator ... > > > > - does not require Tuscany to implement SDO anymore --- yes > > - and still allows Tuscany to implement SDO --- yes > > - and still allows Tuscany to use SDO or any other related technology? > --- > > yes > > > > > I'm trying to understand how to vote, or if I should vote, on your other > thread. Maybe I'm missing something. There is an SDO implementation in > Tuscany at the moment. SDO is a "related technology" worked on in > OpenCSA too. Why would we want to remove it from the charter? > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
