Quoting Greg Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > However, open process is at least as important as open software.
Agreed. But the ASF has just given a bad example on this (IMO). Following the discussions on Geronimo in the last days, my impression is that a lot of decisions (in particular architecture) has already made behind the scenes. I do not even know who took those decisions, or how they look like. I just read in some mails, that they are "soon to be published". Not that *I* am the one who could influence that, but there have been some prominent names expressing interest in Geronimo on this list, who could. > The high attrition rate of significant contributors to the JBoss project > over the years indicates that at least for some there is a problem, that > hopefully the open process of apache will address. That's definitely a point. On the other hand, I still have mixed feelings. My impression is that the Apache side behaves very, well, formal. Right, there might be reasons for doing so, but the typical behaviour between various open source projects should be different, say friendly competing. While I reject words like "controlling every popular, open-source, significant project", I still would prefer a public statement like "we have attempted to do this and that, but that failed because ...". And, very important, followed by a "We are still interested in discussions and open for exchange of ideas and possibly even sources, if license and copyright allows." What good does it, to close the doors? Jochen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
