On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM, mck <[email protected]> wrote: > While it seems obvious that Tiles is stablised/stablising as a product, > i don't see the point in all the work in migrating it to another place > just because the commit rate is dropping...
I've had that thought as well. If we're having trouble building a community here why would there be any less trouble "over there"? If there's a community of people in Spring-land who would like to contribute to the project, why don't they contribute here? At this point I'm neither for nor against moving the project. Like you, I'm not sure I see the point. But if there are people who are willing to work on it and those folks would rather work on it somewhere else I won't stand in the way. I'm kinda partial towards the ASF, but that's because I believe strongly in the ASF's mission and governance and because I have a lot of history here. But I've already admitted that I won't be working on the code anyway. > On the other hand if this is > a requirement by Apache then what choice have we? In that case i hope > Spring could accept it. It's not a requirement per se. I think the board would start to ask questions if a few quarters went by and we had no releases or new committers. They understand that some projects are slower than others and that's cool. But the word "project" invokes a sense of something that is continuing to evolve. So if Tiles has ceased evolving - either because it's stable or because we can't muster up a community of contributors - then it makes sense to retire it. My hesitancy on moving away from Apache is that it seems like there is still room for the project to evolve. Why would that work better somewhere else than here? Is it because of barriers to entry? Would we be better off (i.e. have more contributors) if we didn't require ICLAs or if we could use git or something else? Greg
