What about creating a Wiki page with an initial proposal where people can indicate their interest in joining as PMC members/committers of the new TLPs?
Andreas On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 03:28, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 20 April 2010 8:49:02 pm Eran Chinthaka Withana wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm still confused about this re-org. People started this re-org, saying >> that the projects inside old-WS project was not manageable and no knows >> whats going inside all the projects. It was also mentioned that, since >> project X people also get to have a say in project Y (where X,Y are in WS), >> it will be a mess. >> Now why is this theory not applying to Axiom or XmlSchema projects. They >> are totally independent projects, that can be used beyond Axis2. Also some >> one concentrating only on XmlSchema or Axiom might not be interested in >> Axis2 project or its Karma. So why do you wanna put them inside Axis2 or >> new WS project, once again making the same mistake we had earlier? >> >> Axis2 depends on Axiom and XmlSchema, but not the other way round. > > Well, Axiom I think has enough going on with it and enough activity that could > warrant it being a TLP. I really could go either way on that. > > If you follow board@ at all (I know, most of you cannot follow it) and the > board meeting summaries and such, one of the other things that they are not > liking lately are the repeat "Nothing happened this quarter" reports occuring > over and over and over from the projects. For some of the smaller, less > active, projects (like XmlSchema), there would definitely be a danger of > falling into that path and the board would be concerned about the > oversight/community of such small projects. > > So there needs to be some level of balance between being able to properly > provide oversight to everything going on in the project along with being able > to show there is an active and healthy community. The question is how to > achieve that? If a project like Axiom feels it can go it alone, I would > definitely support it (providing the new PMC is large enough), but I'd also > support keeping the smaller ones together until they are "ready" or until the > technology becomes irrelevant and it goes to the Attic. > > Dan > >> Dan, if new WS project should not be an umbrella project, then why do you >> think we should put Axiom/XmlSchema inside it? >> >> Thanks, >> Eran Chinthaka >> >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Tuesday 20 April 2010 7:54:27 pm Glen Daniels wrote: >> > > Hi Sanjiva, >> > > >> > > Sorry for the late reply. >> > > >> > > On 4/17/2010 3:37 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >> > > > Glen, your proposal amounts to having gone thru a lot of pain to have >> > > > simply TLPed Axis. The entire board prerogative was to break up WS >> > > > wasn't it? >> > > >> > > My interpretation was that it was more "WS is too big" than "WS should >> > > entirely go away". There are plenty of other projects at Apache that >> > >> > have >> > >> > > a reasonable number of subprojects, with related functions and >> > >> > development >> > >> > > communities. I'm not yet convinced that there is sufficient community >> > > around some of the individual subprojects to bootstrap a happy PMC, and >> > > there also may be good reason to keep some of these things together. >> > > >> > > I think reducing WS from >17 subprojects in a two-level container down >> > > to >> > >> > a >> > >> > > single-level container for 6 common Web Service related components >> > > would >> > >> > be >> > >> > > a pretty good accomplishment... and nothing prevents that from being an >> > > intermediate step towards spinning off further TLPs down the road. >> > > >> > > I'm not saying I'm -1 to more TLPs, by the way, just exploring my >> > > off-the-cuff impressions. >> > >> > Just want to say I completely agree with everything Glen said. Well put. >> > It's also my understanding that getting WS down to a smaller, more >> > concentrated project targeting shared WS technologies would be acceptable >> > and >> > really would no longer be an "umbrella" project. >> > >> > Dan >> > >> > > --Glen >> > > >> > > > I'd prefer to make a bunch of new TLPs - give people a chance to grow >> > > > into new roles as well. All the ones you listed as "keep" should be >> > >> > TLPs >> > >> > > > IMO. There is no "minimum size" required to be a TLP. >> > > > >> > > > Sanjiva. >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Glen Daniels <[email protected] >> > > > >> > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > > > Hey y'all, >> > > > >> > > > So as per my earlier mail to the dev lists, we need to talk >> > >> > about... >> > >> > > > * Which subprojects should be promoted to TLPs? >> > > > * Which subprojects should be migrated to the Attic? >> > > > * What should the structure look like for what remains? >> > > > >> > > > Here's what we've got to work with. >> > > > >> > > > 1. Axiom (commons) >> > > > 2. Neethi (commons) >> > > > 3. XmlSchema (commons) >> > > > 4. Tcpmon (commons) >> > > > 5. Guththila (commons) >> > > > 6. JaxMe >> > > > 7. jUDDI >> > > > 8. Scout >> > > > 9. Muse >> > > > 10.Woden >> > > > 11.WSIF >> > > > 12.WSS4J >> > > > 13.XMLRPC >> > > > >> > > > Let's talk Attic first. It seems WSIF and Muse have been pretty >> > >> > much >> > >> > > > inactive for some time now, so I'd propose we get the ball >> > > > rolling with proposals to Attic both of those. JaxMe also seems >> > > > ripe for the Attic. >> > > > >> > > > I think that it's pretty clear jUDDI and Scout should migrate >> > > > together to a >> > > > new TLP, Apache jUDDI, with Kurt as chair. Thoughts? >> > > > >> > > > Does anyone outside of Axis2/C use Guththila? If not, I'd >> > > > suggest that migrate to Axis. >> > > > >> > > > Is there enough activity on XMLRPC to keep it alive? Jochen? >> > > > >> > > > Personally, I'd probably prefer to leave Axiom, Neethi, >> > > > XmlSchema, and Tcpmon >> > > > as subprojects of WS. I'd like to get rid of the "commons" >> > > > layer, though, >> > > > since I think the "new" WS project should itself be a set of >> > > > commonly useful >> > > > WS components. I know other ideas have been discussed for the >> > > > commons stuff, >> > > > so let's start that discussion and get the various opinions out >> > > > on the table? >> > > > >> > > > That leaves Woden and WSS4J. Maybe Woden should stay in WS? As >> > >> > for >> > >> > > > WSS4J, >> > > > I'm not sure if it should stay or become a TLP. >> > > > >> > > > So... what do you guys think? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > --Glen >> > > > >> > > > P.S. Reminder - please fill out your sections of our board >> > > > report for this >> > > > month if appropriate! >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Kulp >> > [email protected] >> > http://dankulp.com/blog > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] > http://dankulp.com/blog >
