incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <>
Subject Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Date Sun, 05 Jan 2003 14:44:17 GMT
This sounds very Kafka to me ... your statement is that if a technology is
in good shape (mature, has a community),  then it shouldn't be added to
Apache/Jakarta/Incubator because there's no benefit.  However, from personal
experience, I know that an unknown but promising project without a community
(say, Tapestry in March 2000 -- check the e-mail achives) is very  much NOT
welcome to Jakarta.

I suppose there's a third option ... become a "journeyman committer" on
other Jakarta projects until you have the political backing to bypass this
Catch-22 filter.  My free time has been completely consumed by Tapestry for
three years, and the framework reflects that, so that was not a viable
option for me.

Here's the Jakarta mission:

Jakarta is a Project of the Apache Software Foundation, charged with the
creation and maintenance of commercial-quality, open-source, server-side
solutions for the Java Platform, based on software licensed to the
Foundation, for distribution at no charge to the public.
Nothing there that says projects must start with Jakarta, and many of the
important ones did not (BSF, ORO, Log4J and others whose history I don't

Tapestry is definately commericial quality (or better) and open-source.
Apache does have a better infrastructure than SourceForge, but primarily
offers Tapestry brand-recognition.  This is very important; on SF it's
impossible to stand out from 20,000 other projects.  Moving Tapestry to
Jakarta means passing a technology/meritocracy filter.  Don't squander that
... it would survive, even if every Jakarta developer died of food poisoning
at JakartaCon2003.

What does Jakarta "get" from hosting Tapestry?  What does it get from
hosting ORO, Struts or Log4J?  It helps Jakarta with its mission statement,
by reinforcing the power of the Jakarta brand ... by delivering more
commercial-quality open-source server-side solutions.  Its a bit of a
feedback cycle, that works as long as the software is of high quality.

I'm alsop beginning to see what Sam Ruby was mentioning about "on my turf".
We seem to be having variations of the same discussion again and again, in
new places.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:03 AM
Subject: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?

> --On Sunday, January 5, 2003 10:01 PM +1100 Conor MacNeill
> <> wrote:
> > What problems do you see that Jakarta has managing what it has?
> > BTW, this is a genuine question, not flamebait. I have seen this
> > statement repeated often and would like to understand its basis.
> *sigh*
> The ability of the Jakarta PMC to maintain oversight of its
> constituent projects.  Sam has stated that the Jakarta PMC takes a
> reactionary response to issues rather than a proactive response
> because it can't keep up.  I believe that is contrary to the original
> intentions of the PMC structure, and indicates a flaw in the model
> used by Jakarta's PMC.
> I believe this is partly because there isn't adequate representation
> in the PMC by all of its projects.  One of the key tenets to the ASF
> model is the meritocracy.  The Jakarta PMC, as a popularly elected
> body, isn't based on merit.
> The management structure needs to be localized near the people doing
> the work - i.e. the code itself.  This allows active oversight to be
> maintained.  The people doing the work get to have a say in the
> management.  This is what makes them aware of how the ASF works.
> (Why aren't more people from Jakarta subprojects members of the ASF?)
> For example, I believe that Tomcat should certainly have its own PMC.
> There is no reason to believe that the Tomcat committers themselves
> can't be legally responsible for the project and its management.  In
> fact, IIRC, according to Roy, only actions by PMC members will be
> protected by the ASF.  Actions by committers may not be protected.
> Therefore, under this interpretation, the bulk of the Jakarta
> participants aren't covered by the protection of the ASF.  How many
> people involved in Jakarta projects realize this?  (It was brought up
> on the reorg@ list and it didn't seem to matter to some.)
> > What would be the compelling reason that you would see for the ASF
> > to accept any project? If Tapestry does not satisfy these
> > requirements, then what sort of project would, IYHO, meet them?
> > IOW, can the incubator function at all?
> I believe the incubator should be about nuturing new communities.
> Projects that already have a viable community have little need for
> the ASF.  About the only thing that they can leverage is either our
> infrastructure and brand name.  Those are things I do not want us to
> allow just any project to use - we can't be SourceForge - we'd
> collapse.  I'd rather us restrict our limited resources to helping
> new communities to form rather than helping already established
> communities.  I think there's a critical mass that every project
> needs to achieve to be self-sustaining.  Projects need help achieving
> that.
> My point is that our infrastructure and brand name can't be the
> reason for joining the ASF.  Tapestry already seems to have a
> community and several major releases.  A new project that is just
> starting out might only have one or two interested people and perhaps
> a little bit of code.  Or, it might be a company looking to build a
> community off donated code (see Tomcat, Ant).  Those are the types of
> things I'd rather see the ASF pursue.  I'm not terribly interested in
> importing medium-or-large size communities.
> Quality over quantity.  Smaller rather than larger.
> > In this case I think the incubator is for the incubation of the
> > Apache Way of doing things in an existing project and its
> > participants. The resolution that formed the incubator states:
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
> >         responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
> >         submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation;
> I'm not really sure what you mean by this.  Yeah, the incubator gets
> to decide what the ASF takes in...
> > Isn't the incubator supposed to decide exactly that question? One
> Well, yes, and that's why we're having this conversation on the
> incubator list not on a wiki.
> > of the problems with the incubator is when the ultimate answer is
> > "No", what then for a project such as Tapestry that has undergone
> > such changes? I'd like to see some discussion around that, for I
> > feel it may be very difficult to say No after acceptance into the
> > Incubator.
> Obviously, I'm favoring a much flatter organizational model.  In
> fact, it's so flat that almost every project we'd incubate would have
> its own PMC.  There isn't another PMC that would have to approve it
> when it leaves the incubator.  The incubator PMC is responsible for
> the oversight of these new PMCs.  My hunch is that the incubator PMC
> would judge when it reaches that critical mass of participation and
> then withdraw from any involvement and do the promotion.  If it
> determines that it will never reach the critical mass, it'll shut the
> PMC down or just leave it in the incubator.
> That's my take on the incubator and its role.  -- justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message