Hi,

Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.

I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues.

0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and
closure of the project?
Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or
4 *years*.
Con - Removes the remaining tangible & historic links between former
Jakarta sub-projects.

1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and
possibly general [at] )
Pro - As Ted H. says "We should stop thinking of "Jakarta" only as
an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for
"Java", as originally intended."
With this thought in mind around 10% of the referrals to
james.apache come from jakarta.apache.
Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources
would be unacceptable to anyone.

2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons
TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved)
Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the
jakarta==java remit.
Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or
maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step
up)

3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any
of the alternative options acceptable?
- Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand
- Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it)
- Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers


x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board?

My own (2c) opinion is that:

0/ Yes dissolve the jakarta pmc

1/ Yes preserve the brand

2/ If commons PMC would be comfortable with this it would be my
preferred choice, *and* it would resolve the naming issue because the
project could be "Jakarta Commons" which is a minor change from the
sub-project name Jakarta/Commons

3/ If commons PMC would be against this then I think we should approach the prc.

x/ Don't know

In essence are we in favour of a revolutionary end or an evolutionary one?

WDYT?

d.

------=_Part_251580_23671677.1179224174345
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/15/07, Danny Angus <danny [at] apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
> because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.
>
> I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
> that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues.
>
> 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and
> closure of the project?
> Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or
> 4 *years*.
> Con - Removes the remaining tangible & historic links between former
> Jakarta sub-projects.
>
> 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and
> possibly general [at] )
> Pro - As Ted H. says "We should stop thinking of "Jakarta" only as
> an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for
> "Java", as originally intended."
> With this thought in mind around 10% of the referrals to
> james.apache come from jakarta.apache.
> Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources
> would be unacceptable to anyone.
>
> 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons
> TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved)
> Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the
> jakarta==java remit.
> Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or
> maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step
> up)
>
> 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any
> of the alternative options acceptable?
> - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand
> - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it)
> - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers
>
>
> x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board?
>
> My own (2c) opinion is that:
>
> 0/ Yes dissolve the jakarta pmc
>
> 1/ Yes preserve the brand
>
> 2/ If commons PMC would be comfortable with this it would be my
> preferred choice, *and* it would resolve the naming issue because the
> project could be "Jakarta Commons" which is a minor change from the
> sub-project name Jakarta/Commons
>
> 3/ If commons PMC would be against this then I think we should approach
> the prc.
>
> x/ Don't know
>
> In essence are we in favour of a revolutionary end or an evolutionary one?
>
> WDYT?
>
> d.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Hello to everybody,

my personal opinion differes slightly.

I still believe that we have to preserve Jakarta as a project summoning the
Java
projects in the foundation. If you ask me directly "Do we need another
Jakartas
like for .NET for instance?" - I would say yes. Those new Jakarta, or
"Nairobi" or
whatever we decide to call it has to be a TLP, and has to have a commons
project,
and has to have a PMC and everything else. Then,part of our current .NET
projects
could be transfered to the .NET-commons one.

Actually I have been following the mail lists for more than three years by
now, although
I am part of the Jakarta project for less than three months, so you
don't need to consider
my thoughts seriosly.

I am curious to hear what Martin van den Bemt has to say, as I know he is
going to
lead a presentation on the ApacheCON USA with the exact same name.


Have a nice day.


--
Regards, Petar!
Karlovo, Bulgaria.

Public PGP Key at:
http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1A15B53 B761500F9
Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9

------=_Part_251580_23671677.1179224174345--

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:22 +0100, Danny Angus wrote:

0/ - Dismember the current Jakarta PMC - +1
1/ - Yes, preserve the brand - +1000
2/ - No. The commons PMC will run the commons project. A possible
Jakarta PMC will not have the attention that might be needed. - -1
3/ - -1 on the PRC. They have enough to do running their stuff and they
are not really interested in the day-to-day business of running a PRC.

Here is a thought: Do we need a PMC?

If we rethink Jakarta as "Java [at] Apache", it will be our gateway for
Java interested developers into Apache. So what we need is sort of a
portal site. Basically a subset of projects.apache.org, branded for
Java. Those projects that feel they want to be on add a special tag (or
just Java) to their DOAP files and off we go. Automatic web site.

This is nothing fancy.

And we keep some mailing lists: general [at] jakarta. announce [at] jakarta. Maybe
a users [at] jakarta which is intended for people to ask about Java stuff and
get redirected. Needs maybe one or two more web pages.

Build the stuff and a nice front page that gets a news ticker similar to
what Jakarta has today, add the "these are our rules pages" which we
also have today, as these are the base for many other projects, ready.

Do we need a PMC? Or could this be an effort run by an existing PMC? For
me, infra would be the logical solution. Because, the whole portal thing
is mainly that. Infrastructure.

- create jakarta-site [at] infra
- let anyone interested subscribe
- get a repository which contains the site and hand out permissions for
it
- wait for a community to gather.

This is a largely stable effort. There is not much work in it (IMHO).
Why add the overhead of a PMC?

I'd like to contribute to that effort.

Best regards
Henning



> Hi,
>
> Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
> because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.
>
> I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
> that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues.
>
> 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and
> closure of the project?
> Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or
> 4 *years*.
> Con - Removes the remaining tangible & historic links between former
> Jakarta sub-projects.
>
> 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and
> possibly general [at] )
> Pro - As Ted H. says "We should stop thinking of "Jakarta" only as
> an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for
> "Java", as originally intended."
> With this thought in mind around 10% of the referrals to
> james.apache come from jakarta.apache.
> Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources
> would be unacceptable to anyone.
>
> 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons
> TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved)
> Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the
> jakarta==java remit.
> Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or
> maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step
> up)
>
> 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any
> of the alternative options acceptable?
> - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand
> - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it)
> - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers
>
>
> x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board?
>
> My own (2c) opinion is that:
>
> 0/ Yes dissolve the jakarta pmc
>
> 1/ Yes preserve the brand
>
> 2/ If commons PMC would be comfortable with this it would be my
> preferred choice, *and* it would resolve the naming issue because the
> project could be "Jakarta Commons" which is a minor change from the
> sub-project name Jakarta/Commons
>
> 3/ If commons PMC would be against this then I think we should approach the prc.
>
> x/ Don't know
>
> In essence are we in favour of a revolutionary end or an evolutionary one?
>
> WDYT?
>
> d.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:56 +0200, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:22 +0100, Danny Angus wrote:
>
> 0/ - Dismember the current Jakarta PMC - +1
> 1/ - Yes, preserve the brand - +1000
> 2/ - No. The commons PMC will run the commons project. A possible
> Jakarta PMC will not have the attention that might be needed. - -1

^Jakarta PMC^Jakarta site^

> 3/ - -1 on the PRC. They have enough to do running their stuff and they
> are not really interested in the day-to-day business of running a PRC.

^running a PRC^running as the PMC for Jakarta^

gee, why am I off my meds today? :-(

Best regards
Henning

--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps [at] intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux, |gls
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc
|m k
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n

On 5/15/07, Danny Angus <danny [at] apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
> because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.
>
> I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
> that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues.
>
> 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and
> closure of the project?

+1. Our current system needs to change.

> 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and
> possibly general [at] )

+1. I like the idea of keeping general.

Effectively we're talking about the much vaunted yet failed to
materialize federation concepts. XML are ahead of us in this position;
they have one project left (Xindice) for which my advice is sending it
TLP and then all they will have left is a moribund PMC and the
federation work they've done. Which I think is much like the
java [at] apache page I added a couple of years back (and removed not long
ago).

> Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources
> would be unacceptable to anyone.

We need to make sure it is self-maintaining to a large extent. The
DOAP stuff might be a way to go, though I think we would want to mix
it with branding and original content.

> 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons
> TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved)
> Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the
> jakarta==java remit.
> Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or
> maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step
> up)

There's a huge tie between the portal (federation) idea and the
commons idea. Both exist as a span for the projects in their category.
I'd rather see two groups showing responsibility rather than lumping
it on the one PMC. So -1 on this one.

> 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any
> of the alternative options acceptable?
> - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand

Maybe not so bad. It's a good start to being Java [at] Apache as far as
committers/members go. We could extend it such that it's very open to
people being added. For example; there'd be no point having a Jakarta
committer without them being on the PMC.

> - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it)

-1. StackOverflow.

> - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers

-1. StackOverflow.

> x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board?

I'm very tempted to ask for opinions on the federation idea on behalf
of both Jakarta and XML as they're both hitting the point of needing
to figure out how we would organize it. I think that part is
definitely on the shoulders of the board/members.

If we end up with code that is in maintenance (Slide, ECS, Alexandria,
JServ, whatever); are we suggesting the Jakarta PMC would handle it or
some other random group?

Hen

On 5/15/07, Danny Angus <danny [at] apache.org> wrote:
> 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and
> closure of the project?
> Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or
> 4 *years*.
> Con - Removes the remaining tangible & historic links between former
> Jakarta sub-projects.

At the ASF, we let them that do the work make the decisions. (Mainly
because we have to ... otherwise, there would be no one willing to do
the work!) We can talk about end-games until Sol goes nova, but in
the end the volunteers who do the work will make the decision.

So far, the subproject committers have been deciding to create their
own TLP. Not because the Jakarta PMC said so, but because the
subproject committers said so.

The one proactive step we could take is to set a deadline for other
TLPs to migrate or to find some other home, either as part of another
TLP, or with another project host. Or, we could just wait the
remaining subprojects out, and let nature take its course over the
next year or three.


> 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and
> possibly general [at] )
> Pro - As Ted H. says "We should stop thinking of "Jakarta" only as
> an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for
> "Java", as originally intended."
> With this thought in mind around 10% of the referrals to
> james.apache come from jakarta.apache.
> Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources
> would be unacceptable to anyone.\

The goodness of the Jakarta brand isn't the result of working on the
Jakarta brand. It's the result of fostering healthy communities that
create great software. Now, those communities have gone on to create
their own TLPs, and to create their own brands. Sure, Jakarta has name
recognition. But so does Ant and Maven and Struts and Tapestry and
Velocity.

Essentially, Jakarta was the first incubator. Now we have a top-level
Incubator, and most of our subprojects have gone on to become TLP too.
I think Java at Apache has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.
Today, the communities we fostered don't need the crutch of an
uber-project. They can stand alone, and for that we should be happy!

But not to worry. Whenever we foster healthy communities that create
great software, we will create another great brand. It's what we do.
:)


>
> 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons
> TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved)
> Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the
> jakarta==java remit.
> Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or
> maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step
> up)

At the ASF, great brands are created by healthy communities that
create great software. I would say that the Commons certainly fits
that bill. An excellent way to preserve the Jakarta name would be to
lend it to the Jakarta Commons TLP. After all, the Commons had a lot
to do with creating the Jakarta brand as it exists today.


> 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any
> of the alternative options acceptable?
> - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand
> - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it)
> - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers

An Apache Jakarta Commons does not obviate a Jakarta federation or a
Jakarta portal. If anything, reuse of the name increases its value. We
can have our cake and eat it too!


> x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board?

At the ASF level, when we talk about protecting a brand, we usually
mean "give credit where credit is due". Being a meritocracy, we don't
want other people diluting our brand by claiming our work as theirs,
or their work as ours. So long as the Jakarta brand is not being
poached by a third-party, I doubt that anyone else would care. From an
ASF perspective, the only things of value are those things that
attract qualified volunteers. From a marketing perspective, a "brand"
may attract downloads, but I don't know if it attracts volunteers.

-Ted.

.....so this thread died again without a conclusion or resulution.

My take with as few words as possible:

* push for active project to go TLP
* jakarta.apache.org - the portal to all java projects at apache.
Just a shell - but let's keep the brand. Not necessarily a PMC
required. (Although a non-code project trying to improve
collaboration between java projects would be an idea to discuss)
* ${commons}.apache.org - as people have concerns about the name (as
there is more than java) let's find a new one.
- commonsj
- jcommons
- ...
* dormant.apache.org - maybe a place where we put not just old stuff
from jakarta

cheers
--
Torsten

"Danny Angus" <danny [at] apache.org> writes:

> Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
> because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta....


This thread has been more quiet than I expected. A couple of quick
thoughts:

Henri and Henning seem to have the same ideas about Jakarta becoming a
"portal" or "federation" and I'm +1 for that. I think that's a great
idea and it's low maintenance. Really, what more would you need than
the general [at] list?

As for dormant code, leave it where it is. If we still have a few
committers working on it and making releases occasionally, then we'd
still need a functional PMC. Otherwise, if we get enough noise about
a subproject, it can be revived (perhaps with help from the
Incubator).

And the site should be as self-maintaining as possible, picking up
news and releases from all other java projects at apache. I would
think there is no more qualified group of people to put together such
as site than we have in Jakarta/Apache.

--
J Aaron Farr jadetower.com [US] +1 724-964-4515
=E9=A6=AE=E5=82=91ä=BB=81 cubiclemuses.com [HK] +852 812=
3-7905

J Aaron Farr wrote:

.... cut ...
> As for dormant code, leave it where it is. If we still have a few
> committers working on it and making releases occasionally, then we'd
> still need a functional PMC. Otherwise, if we get enough noise about
> a subproject, it can be revived (perhaps with help from the
> Incubator).
>
.... cut ...

There may be many reasons why a project turned "dormant": no interest
(dead technology), committers having gone astray, etc.

One reason that may be special is a project which got developed, is
used, but there is no reason to develop it further. If classifying a
project as "matured" it still may need fixing of problems and/or
enhancements over time, making it necessary to create a new distribution.

The idea of putting a "matured" project into the "incubator" realm does
not sound "right" to me. It would not be a project which needs to gain
additional developers to "grow", if it has become clear that it is
matured. Or with other words: I would not expect a "matured" project to
get out of an "incubator", which (from the name) is probably meant to
try out, interest, nurture new projects. Also morphing a matured project
into a TLP seems not to be concludent to me (a TLP should be either an
umbrella for other "little" active projects that belong somehow
together, or be a project that gets actively developed for the
foreseeable future and has a broad developer and user community).

Case in question: the Beans Scripting Framework. Version 2.4.0 has gone
Golden last fall and it is expected to be stable. There may be new
engines that get developed for this Java scripting framework, but from
todays perspective, there are no new features for 2.4.0 that can be
foreseen. So 2.4.0 would be in "matured" mode, people are using it and
maybe new Java developers take advantage of it.

There is a new version (3.0) of BSF in beta, created according to the
JSR-223 specs, implementing the official Java scripting framework in
opensource under an Apache license, and can be deployed starting with
Java 4. There are plans by ant to eventually test it againast the TCK.
Now this version is in active development, but if everything goes well,
it will become "mature" once it is officially released. Then this
project would be in "maintenance" mode as well, mainly bug-fixing and
supporting users will be necessary. Of course, if Sun's Java scripting
framework gets enhanced, then these enhancements would probably be
incoroportated into the future BSF 3.0.

Unless there are already rules that mandate that projects that got
developed to a point after which they go into "maintenance" mode need to
go into the "incubator", I would suggest to create a new classification
for such projects. They should be named "matured". Depending whether
there are committers who maintain matured projects, they should be
further qualified as "maintained" projects, or otherwise be put into an
archive of unmaintained matured projects.

---rony

Torsten Curdt wrote on Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 AM:

> ....so this thread died again without a conclusion or resulution.

because there seems none. Any attempt in any kind of direction has been =
vetoed down and for me it is pointless to bring the same arguments again =
in a new thread.

[snip]

- Jörg

On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schaible [at] elsag-solutions.com> wrote:

> Any attempt in any kind of direction has been vetoed down and for me it i=
s pointless to bring the same arguments again in a new thread.

Jorg,
Searching through my mail I don't really see you advancing any
"arguments" about the future of Jakarta.

Perhaps you could consider repeating them for the benefit of those of
us who didn't hear what you said?

It would be sad if people who have an opinion choose not to express it
in a thread explicity about the future of Jakarta on the pmc list
just because it may have already been expressed in Commons dev or poi
dev or wherever else.

On the other hand if there really is the level of apathy which the
inactivity in this thread hints at then the choices are pretty clear.

d.

On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr <farra [at] apache.org> wrote:

> This thread has been more quiet than I expected.

I thought so too.

There are two points which I'd like to make from the things that have
been said so far,

1/ From Ted H. "Whenever we foster healthy communities that create
great software, we will create another great brand. It's what we do."

That's a really good point, and one which more than anything else has
raised a doubt in my mind as to the benefit of retaining the Jakarta
brand.

2/ It seems that we have a consensus forming around the idea that it
would be worthwhile retaining some resources in a low-maintenance way.
However its not clear where the ownership of these would lie.

I like the idea that http://jakarta might aggregate news content from
java projects. Differentiating itself from http://projects by being
the source of news about apache java projects.

d.

On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr <farra [at] apache.org> wrote:

> This thread has been more quiet than I expected.

Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that's because we all think we
know where this is inevitably going and we're just waiting for it all
to settle out.

d.

My silence is because I think I made my preferred option quite clear way too many times.

Mvgr,
Martin

Danny Angus wrote:
> On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr <farra [at] apache.org> wrote:
>
>> This thread has been more quiet than I expected.
>
> Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that's because we all think we
> know where this is inevitably going and we're just waiting for it all
> to settle out.
>
> d.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>

Hi Danny,

Danny Angus wrote on Monday, May 21, 2007 10:47 AM:

> On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schaible [at] elsag-solutions.com> =
wrote:
>
>> Any attempt in any kind of direction has been vetoed down
> and for me it is pointless to bring the same arguments again
> in a new thread.
>
> Jorg,
> Searching through my mail I don't really see you advancing any
> "arguments" about the future of Jakarta.
>
> Perhaps you could consider repeating them for the benefit of those of
> us who didn't hear what you said?

Well, I follow the discussion quite for a while and anything was already =
said or proposed by other people and I could not add something new. So I =
limited myself to vote.

> It would be sad if people who have an opinion choose not to express it
> in a thread explicity about the future of Jakarta on the pmc list
> just because it may have already been expressed in Commons dev or poi
> dev or wherever else.

IMHO it does not help, repeating the same arguments.

> On the other hand if there really is the level of apathy which the
> inactivity in this thread hints at then the choices are pretty clear.

So, here you do imply something ;-)

But to recap, we had

1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed
2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed
3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed

So what's left in your opinion?

I don't buy the Jakarta=3DJava-Portal solution, since I believe it fails =
the doing. Option 2 would have been my personal choice, since
- we keep the brand
- we state that we're Java centric
- we wrap a greater community about "matured/left-over/maintained only" =
components

Any Jakarta project that feels uneasy because it
- has an isolated community
- has a broader scope than "Java"
should consider a TLP

Option 3 from above was raised, because 2 did not make it and it would =
have forced the Jakarta left behind projects to make a real statement of =
their own. Now we're stuck to the status-quo and I see no way out of it =
anymore (<sarcasm>or should we try to start a vote on those issues in =
periodic times of 6 months unless one of it passes?</sarcasm>).

Out of ideas,
Jörg

On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schaible [at] elsag-solutions.com> wrote:

> 1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed
> 2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed
> 3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed
>
> So what's left in your opinion?

Work with the people who cast the deadlocking vetoes to resolve their
issues and uncover a compromise which is acceptable to the majority.

I'm not sure why 1/ is vetoed, unless this is related to the POI
confusion over M$ IP. In which case POI TLP should remove that veto.

2/ commons TLP should resolve this

3/ veto was mainly detail around name and the wording of the
resolution, no reason to suppose this won't be resolved. the proposal
received -1's but the people who voted -1 should work with the
community to get their concerns resolved, not simply block all
progress.

d.

On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schaible [at] elsag-solutions.com> wrote:
>
> But to recap, we had
>
> 1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed
> 2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed
> 3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed

Each of those proposals could be voted down, but are not subject to
veto. In other words, a -1 expressed in such a vote is just a -1, not
a veto.

> Any Jakarta project that feels uneasy because it
> - has an isolated community
> - has a broader scope than "Java"
> should consider a TLP

+1

- Sam Ruby

On 5/21/07, Danny Angus <danny [at] apache.org> wrote:
> 2/ It seems that we have a consensus forming around the idea that it
> would be worthwhile retaining some resources in a low-maintenance way.
> However its not clear where the ownership of these would lie.

Like anything else ASF, the "ownership" will lie with the volunteers
who actually do the work.

JAKARTA AS A PORTAL

If someone wants to turn Jakarta into a Java portal, then turn Jakarta
into a Java portal. Some of the codebases may still be under the
Jakarta PMC umbrella, but would have little effect on using the
Jakarta site as a portal to the ASF's Java assets.

To a great extent, it already *is* a portal. The only real difference
would be to carry "news" from any ASF Java product, and to list all
the Java products, not just Jakarta and ex-Jakarta. (We should also
keep in mind that we have at least three multi-language projects with
a Java product: iBATIS, Logging, and Lucene.)

Anyone interested in such a thing can start now. There's no need for a
vote. Changes to ASF websites have always been commit-then-review. So,
commit. :)


INACTIVE CODEBASES

As to inactive projects or Jakarta subprojects, we had that discussion
on the members list. Tthe general consensus was to "let sleeping dogs
lie". If a project is inactive, the most we should do is post a note
to that effect on the website. If someone wants to reactive a project
later, then one or more interested people can apply to the incubator.


REMAINING JAKARTA SUBPROJECTS

The rest of the Jakarta subprojects can either hang around for a few
more years, or we could force the TLP issue with a deadline, and then
tag the stragglers as "inactive, in search of a community".

It doesn't matter much either way. We all see the handwriting on the wall.


COMMONS TLP

As for the Jakarta Commons TLP proposal, essentially, that vote
passed. The people who made the proposal could submit it at the next
board meeting as it stands, with a mention that there was some
amicable discussion on the vote thread. As Torsten mentioned, the
volunteers making the proposal might decide to use a more qualified
name than "Apache Commons", so as to resolve the discussion points.

Worse case, the Commons group could always go with "Apache Jakarta
Commons". No one has objected to the re-use of the word "Jakarta", and
more than one person has affirmed that it could be used. Then one
day, we could also have an Apache Ruby Commons, and/or an Apache
DotNet Commons, and maybe even an Apache XML Commons and Apache
WebServers Commons.

The codebase could stay under the Jakarta host for now, or more under
the Apache Commons host. It doesn't much matter. Implementation
details are up to the people doing the work (meaning, the proposed
Jakarta Commons PMC and Infrastructure).

-Ted.

On 5/21/07, Rony G. Flatscher <Rony.Flatscher [at] wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:
> There may be many reasons why a project turned "dormant": no interest
> (dead technology), committers having gone astray, etc.
>
> One reason that may be special is a project which got developed, is
> used, but there is no reason to develop it further. If classifying a
> project as "matured" it still may need fixing of problems and/or
> enhancements over time, making it necessary to create a new distribution.
>
> The idea of putting a "matured" project into the "incubator" realm does
> not sound "right" to me.

That's is *not* what is being said.

What is being said is that if a codebase loses all of its committers,
and there is no one to nominate new committers, and one or more new
volunteers come along that want to work on the codebase, then those
individuals could become committers by applying to the Incubator.

Anyone who is the position where they have become the last one or two
committers to a codebase should put out a bulletin, first asking for
other ASF Committers to step up, and if no one replies, then
nominating likely candidates from the user list.


> Unless there are already rules that mandate that projects that got
> developed to a point after which they go into "maintenance" mode need to
> go into the "incubator", I would suggest to create a new classification
> for such projects.

Again, no one is suggesting that any codebase be unilaterally moved anywhere.

If we are short of committers for a codebase, then what committers
remain should recruit new committers.

If we lose all the committers, and new volunteers come along, then the
Incubator becomes the way that we bootstrap the new set of committers.
When we realize that have no committers, for whatever reason, then
someone should patch the website so that everyone knows where we
stand.

-Ted.

On 5/21/07, Ted Husted <husted [at] apache.org> wrote:

> If someone wants to turn Jakarta into a Java portal, then turn Jakarta
> into a Java portal. Some of the codebases may still be under the
> Jakarta PMC umbrella, but would have little effect on using the
> Jakarta site as a portal to the ASF's Java assets.

Ok "Ownership" is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being
disbanded who provides the oversight?


> Anyone interested in such a thing can start now. There's no need for a
> vote.

But it is under the auspices of the Jakarta PMC, I though there was a
reluctance to see the jakarta PMC retained just for managing these
resources?


d.

Here's a stupid but important question - what impact will all this have =
on the future development of Tomcat?
Thanks,
Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: sa3ruby [at] gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby [at] gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:12 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta

On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schaible [at] elsag-solutions.com> wrote:
>
> But to recap, we had
>
> 1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed
> 2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed
> 3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed

Each of those proposals could be voted down, but are not subject to
veto. In other words, a -1 expressed in such a vote is just a -1, not
a veto.

> Any Jakarta project that feels uneasy because it
> - has an isolated community
> - has a broader scope than "Java"
> should consider a TLP

+1

- Sam Ruby

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org

None - Tomcat is its own TLP

-Tim

Guy_Brian [at] emc.com wrote:
> Here's a stupid but important question - what impact will all this have on the future development of Tomcat?

On 5/21/07, Danny Angus <danny [at] apache.org> wrote:
> Ok "Ownership" is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being
> disbanded who provides the oversight?

The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people
doing the work.

If anyone wants Jakarta to be the ASF portal to all of our Java
assets, then make it so.

A commit is the only vote that counts.

-Ted.

Ted Husted wrote:

> Worse case, the Commons group could always go with "Apache Jakarta
> Commons". No one has objected to the re-use of the word "Jakarta", and
> more than one person has affirmed that it could be used.

That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one has expressed
objections (you even responded to those objections)

Mvgr,
Martin

On 5/21/07, Ted Husted <husted [at] apache.org> wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Danny Angus <danny [at] apache.org> wrote:
> > Ok "Ownership" is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being
> > disbanded who provides the oversight?
>
> The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people
> doing the work.
>
> If anyone wants Jakarta to be the ASF portal to all of our Java
> assets, then make it so.
>
> A commit is the only vote that counts.

Yes, OK, and that's what I'm trying to find out. Does anyone? or is it just me?
If its just me then even without my customary modesty I'd struggle to
imagine that I could provide a sensible level of attention, this
requires some degree of support or we're just flogging a dead horse.
I'm trying to find out whether or not it is even worth drafting a
vote, or if we just want to all go home once the last active
sub-projects get their TLP.

d.

On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one has
> expressed objections (you even responded to those objections)

Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say
that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do
you still feel that way?

-Ted.

Danny Angus wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Ted Husted <husted [at] apache.org> wrote:
>> On 5/21/07, Danny Angus <danny [at] apache.org> wrote:
>> > Ok "Ownership" is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being
>> > disbanded who provides the oversight?
>>
>> The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people
>> doing the work.
>>
>> If anyone wants Jakarta to be the ASF portal to all of our Java
>> assets, then make it so.
>>
>> A commit is the only vote that counts.
>
> Yes, OK, and that's what I'm trying to find out. Does anyone? or is it
> just me?

It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage, since if it is just some commits
as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal or something, but at least get
some attention from the java projects out there if they are willing to help out and also have some
collaboration with David Reid / projects.a.o. It's not worth it if the Apache java projects don't
like the idea and help out at least with their project.
(not suggesting you are of a different opinion though Danny)

Mvgr,
Martin

On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage, since if it is just some
> commits
> as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal or something, but at
> least get
> some attention from the java projects out there if they are willing to help out and also
> have some
> collaboration with David Reid / projects.a.o. It's not worth it if the Apache java projects
> don't
> like the idea and help out at least with their project.
> (not suggesting you are of a different opinion though Danny)

Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to
include links to our other Java products that were never part of
Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news
feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in.

-Ted.

Ted Husted wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
>> It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage,
>> since if it is just some
>> commits
>> as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal
>> or something, but at
>> least get
>> some attention from the java projects out there if they are willing to
>> help out and also
>> have some
>> collaboration with David Reid / projects.a.o. It's not worth it if the
>> Apache java projects
>> don't
>> like the idea and help out at least with their project.
>> (not suggesting you are of a different opinion though Danny)
>
> Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to
> include links to our other Java products that were never part of
> Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news
> feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in.
>

I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view doing this now is *way* too
premature. I currently only want to invest my time and energy on Jakarta and it's current projects.

Mvgr,
Martin

Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, should just stay here till they
are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project.

Mvgr,
Martin

Ted Husted wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
>> That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean
>> no one has
>> expressed objections (you even responded to those objections)
>
> Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say
> that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do
> you still feel that way?
>
> -Ted.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>

What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of
reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the
project name "Apache Jakarta Commons" still be a problem for you if
the physical infrastructure remained "here", under the Jakarta
hostname?

-Ted.

On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, should just stay here
> till they
> are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> Ted Husted wrote:
> > On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> >> That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean
> >> no one has
> >> expressed objections (you even responded to those objections)
> >
> > Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say
> > that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do
> > you still feel that way?
> >
> > -Ted.

On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> > Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to
> > include links to our other Java products that were never part of
> > Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news
> > feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in.
>
> I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view doing this now is
> *way* too premature. I currently only want to invest my time and energy on Jakarta and
> it's current projects.

That's fair. Every volunteer should scratch their own itch :)

If other volunteers were ready to explore this course of action now,
would you object to someone creating a "java [at] apache" portal here by
extending the Jakarta home page?

-Ted.

On 5/21/07, Ted Husted <husted [at] apache.org> wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> > > Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to
> > > include links to our other Java products that were never part of
> > > Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news
> > > feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in.
> >
> > I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view doing this now is
> > *way* too premature. I currently only want to invest my time and energy on Jakarta and
> > it's current projects.
>
> That's fair. Every volunteer should scratch their own itch :)
>
> If other volunteers were ready to explore this course of action now,
> would you object to someone creating a "java [at] apache" portal here by
> extending the Jakarta home page?

Easy enough to do; resurrect this page and start adding to it :)

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jakarta/site/xdocs/site/java_at _apache.xml?view=log&pathrev=482036

Hen

One link to a separate page isn't a problem, since I prefer that no major changes happen to the main
site at this stage.
Currently I am pretty much dedicated in keeping Jakarta as a brand. And when that time comes to
worry about that, I'll work with the people who still have the itch and the cycles to spare.
Starting to make it happen now feels like a waste of time, since the future of Jakarta is by no way
set at this moment.

Mvgr,
Martin

Ted Husted wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
>> > Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to
>> > include links to our other Java products that were never part of
>> > Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news
>> > feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in.
>>
>> I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view
>> doing this now is
>> *way* too premature. I currently only want to invest my time and
>> energy on Jakarta and
>> it's current projects.
>
> That's fair. Every volunteer should scratch their own itch :)
>
> If other volunteers were ready to explore this course of action now,
> would you object to someone creating a "java [at] apache" portal here by
> extending the Jakarta home page?
>
> -Ted.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>

That's quite problematic : Jakarta is responsible for jakarta.apache.org, not commons, sharing that
responsibility will just complicate things a lot.

It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a flattened)
commons become Jakarta..

Mvgr,
Martin

Ted Husted wrote:
> What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of
> reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the
> project name "Apache Jakarta Commons" still be a problem for you if
> the physical infrastructure remained "here", under the Jakarta
> hostname?
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
>> Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name,
>> should just stay here
>> till they
>> are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project.
>>
>> Mvgr,
>> Martin
>>
>> Ted Husted wrote:
>> > On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
>> >> That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean
>> >> no one has
>> >> expressed objections (you even responded to those objections)
>> >
>> > Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say
>> > that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do
>> > you still feel that way?
>> >
>> > -Ted.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>

On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> One link to a separate page isn't a problem, since I prefer that no major changes happen
> to the main site at this stage.
> Currently I am pretty much dedicated in keeping Jakarta as a brand. And when that time
> comes to worry about that, I'll work with the people who still have the itch and the cycles
> to spare. Starting to make it happen now feels like a waste of time, since the future of
> Jakarta is by no way set at this moment.

Why does it have to be and either/or proposition?

I would think that regardless of what anyone envisions the future of
Jakarta to be, extending the home page to highlight *all* of the Java
products at the ASF would be a Good Thing.

The notion of extending the Jakarta home page so that it can become
the focal point of all things Java at Apache seems orthogonal as to
whether or not Jakarta continues to host subprojects.

-Ted.

On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a
> flattened) commons become Jakarta..

Then why the concern about the use of Apache Jakarta Commons as a project name?

When the time comes, we could just point <jakarta.apache.org> at
<commons.apache.org/jakarta>.

-Ted.

On 5/21/07, Ted Husted <husted [at] apache.org> wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
> > It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a
> > flattened) commons become Jakarta..

Actually, it might be helpful if you repeated yourself in full, to be
sure we're not talking past each other. For example, I don't know what
"flattened" means.

-Ted.

Ted Husted wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
>> One link to a separate page isn't a problem, since I prefer that no
>> major changes happen
>> to the main site at this stage.
>> Currently I am pretty much dedicated in keeping Jakarta as a brand.
>> And when that time
>> comes to worry about that, I'll work with the people who still have
>> the itch and the cycles
>> to spare. Starting to make it happen now feels like a waste of time,
>> since the future of
>> Jakarta is by no way set at this moment.
>
> Why does it have to be and either/or proposition?
>
> I would think that regardless of what anyone envisions the future of
> Jakarta to be, extending the home page to highlight *all* of the Java
> products at the ASF would be a Good Thing.

It's a good thing, but not now :)

>
> The notion of extending the Jakarta home page so that it can become
> the focal point of all things Java at Apache seems orthogonal as to
> whether or not Jakarta continues to host subprojects.

It just removes focus from the tasks we have to deal with *now*.. And if Jakarta is going to still
be a project with code, I rather see the people involved in that project make the decisions.

Don't forget there are 2 outcomes for Jakarta (ignoring no Jakarta at all)
- Jakarta as just a website.
- Jakarta as a real Apache project, which means that project owns Jakarta. Since the Jakarta project
needs to be re-established, the current people on the PMC are not the people on the new PMC and can
therefor have a different opinion on being java at apache and undo all the work.


Mvgr,
Martin

Flattened means : jakarta.apache.org/commons becomes jakarta.apache.org :)

Mvgr,
Martin

Ted Husted wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Ted Husted <husted [at] apache.org> wrote:
>> On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <mllist [at] mvdb.net> wrote:
>> > It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating
>> myself here) : Let (a
>> > flattened) commons become Jakarta..
>
> Actually, it might be helpful if you repeated yourself in full, to be
> sure we're not talking past each other. For example, I don't know what
> "flattened" means.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>