On 3/9/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that if we acknowledge that a community as a group of peers, working > towards a common goal, then that would derive umbrellas from projects where > there are distinctions of authority (and therefor work) within that > community's codebase. I.e. either I am a committer on project X, or I am not.
Exactly. This is what for instance java.net calls communities. There, every project is a TLP, but they form communities together with seperate mailing lists/forums etc. Of course, they have less structure and oversight, so they get away with this more easily. > Now, that would break things up such as WS and DB, but in reality it is > already happening, and the umbrella project becomes the federation of > ontology. IMHO, the model is weak. I think we should strive for individual > projects, no subprojects from a community perspective, and instead look for > how to solve collaboration across projects, whether they are tightly coupled > or not (technology wise), meaning an orthogonal collaboration view of ASF, > which would guide external users as well, since project X can belong to many > such views if it makes sense. Interestingly, DB is already more of a community than an umbrella project. I can't speak for WS or XML but I could imagine that the same is true for them. To some degree, this is even true for Jakarta. And there is a case for sub-projects as well, e.g. for projects that are too small to be self-governing and that perhaps have a shared set of developers and even goals (e.g. like the Jakarta commons libraries). cheers, Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
