The problem with grouping sub-projects under a super-project is that it leads to more politics rather than less because many of the decision makers have to base their decisions on personal reputation (or whatever) rather than personal knowledge of the content.
As a member of the PMC for Mahout, I was formerly a member of the PMC for Lucene purely based on my Mahout membership. That entitled me to vote on Lucene issues. Occasionally it was tempting to do so, but usually only because I knew the reputation of the person proposing the change. That probably goes the other way for Mahout decisions by Lucene people. That isn't good for projects in the end and having Mahout separated is better for both projects. There is nothing that prevents related projects from associating, from sharing committers or even PMC membership (Grant is on the Mahout and Lucene PMC's, btw) or from linking back and forth on the project web pages. For all intents and purposes, such projects can be as closely associated as ever even if they are not under the same umbrella. On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Troy Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > So it seems to me that you're essentially saying that sub-projects are > in a nutshell, problematic from a management point of view, and that > ASF would prefer as many thing to be TLPs as possible, so that there > aren't hierarchies of management happening. > > This is unintuitive from an external point of view, as you would > expect all variants of Lucene to be grouped together. >
