Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
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.
While some decisions have been made and some code is being written, this is what is required to start the apache process. Nothing that has been decided or written has been fixed in stone and the process exists to make changes.
That's definitely a point. On the other hand, I still have mixed feelings.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.
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.
Well I also like the friendly model - but it does not always work, personalities do clash, things fall apart, the center cannot hold, democracy is the worst system except for all the other ones, etc. etc.
I think there is strength in diversity - there are lots of models out there and people can try them all. JBoss is being developed under one model - which may suit some, but that should not prevent others from trying other models. While I have not worked under the apache system before (and I'm sure I'm going to find aspects of it very frustrating), I am very hopeful that the openess of the process will be a big win for both the developers and users of OS J2EE.
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 ...".
The history of the attempts, failures and otherwise is spread over many public and private email repositories and fractured by many many different view points - all of them biased to some degree or other.
I don't think it is productive to revisit the history of it all - the small amount of it that has happened so far has already resulted in name calling etc.
What is important, is that for various reasons and through foul means and fair - a community of developers has been attracted to the ASF to attempt a new project. So let's look forward.
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?
We are still interested in discussions and open for exchange of ideas and possibly even sources, if license and copyright allows.
(NB. I am in no way able to say "we" on behalf of the ASF, but I do know that the geronimo project would agree with this statement)
cheers
-- Greg Wilkins<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone/fax: +44 7092063462 Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK. http://www.mortbay.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
