On 8/26/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 8/26/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> > "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >>> I'm with Geir. What does dormancy have to do with it? Dormancy is
>> >>> the opposite of our plans.
>> >
>> >> Martin brought it up as a worry for Velocity moving to TLP.
>
> Who started it doesn't explain what dormancy has to do with it.
> Unless you guys already consider Velocity to be dormant (see below for
> my disagreement there), then this is irrelevant as we are talking
> about the opposite of ceasing activity.
Leaving the meaning of the word "dormant" behind me :)
Thanks for bearing with me! :)
The whole worry I have/had about this statement (this statement being you
mentioning that with TLP
new activity will occur), is that going TLP doesn't necessarily spark activity
in my opinion (maybe
just for a short time) and to put this statement into context : that is
assuming no new projects
join the TLP velocity project.
Huh?? The only related statement of mine was not in my initial
proposal and is really not far from what you're saying. I quote (with
key words emphasized),
"[moving to TLP] will allow us to make closer connections between
Velocity-based projects and thus grow the immediate community. This
**MAY** both 1) create renewed interest in past and current committers
and contributers via more exposure to new, interesting Velocity-based
projects (like Click) and/or 2) make it easier to bring in new
committers and contributers for Velocity from those projects'
communities. Of course, there are **NO** guarantees..."
And this is only one of the motivations for going TLP.
Maintaining a TLP costs time and most projects that have less activity, have
less activity, because
of a lack of time of the committers, the worry of the board could be that they
don't see how the
project could manage itself without any people that have the time to manage it.
I don't really think that's much different than being a subproject of
Jakarta. However, as a Jakarta subproject, we are restricted to
Jakarta's policies, the opinions of PMC members who have nothing to do
with Velocity, and so on... As i said very early in this thread, the
primary goal here is not freeing/gaining developer time but freeing up
Velocity and its subprojects (both existing and potential), though it
is possible that the former **MAY** happen as a result of the latter.
If understood Henri correctly, this however is something for the board to worry
about :)
Sorry for abusing your proposal as a learning ground and playing the "devil"
here :)
Always remember : I am +1 on the TLP move ;)
Oh yeah. :)
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
