On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:40:47PM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >I've heard nothing to provide a reason for not bringing in the
> >contribution
> >as a standalone podling, which ServiceMix and others can consume.
> >This would be in accord with Ken and Mads.
>
> I really detest it when people try to flip the burden of proof. The
> donator wants to put the code into ServiceMix and ServiceMix wants to
> work on it. I think the burden of proof is on you. Unless you come
> up with a BIG reason that this donation must be stopped, otherwise I
> see no reason to not proceed with the IP checklist.
The IP checklist is the same either way. There is no "burden of proof"
with respect to that. The "proof" is actually more about "expected
outcome" and around how we believe the ASF community will end up
managing the resulting codebase.
IMO, what is happening here is that a number of people are observing,
for all intents and purposes, a turf battle over a codebase. That is
the antithesis of the ASF community model. This implies there are two
problems: the battle, and the people (who see "defending turf" as okay
behavior).
The solution to erasing those turf lines is to put *everybody* into
the same pool (the BPEL podling) and to put *all* projects outside of
that pool (no special consideration for Geronimo, WS, or whoever).
The more people play turf battles ("go into the service-mix turf"),
the worse the whole BPEL situation looks, and the more important it is
to stamp it out right here and now. And that is what the Incubator is
all about. Erase the lines and create a community that can work on
something with a cooperative atmosphere.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
