incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Date Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:23:44 GMT

Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,  
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo  
community.  The vision was to have a single community focused on  
building a modular server architecture based on a single core.  The  
global deliverable would be Geronimo the J2EE server, but each of the  
sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core  
with one plugin installed).  This is what we pitched to the external  
projects and what they agreed to.

Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the  
communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and  
they said it was possible.  I didn't want to get into a situation  
where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities  
and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some  
unknown apache rules.  Now it seem like that is exactly what will  

We (the communities) want to form a single community focused on this  
goal, are you saying that this is not possible anymore?    If this no  
longer the case, I think we have an obligation to inform the  
incubating communities, so they can decide if they want to continue  
incubation and become an Apache TLP or go back to where they were.


On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
>> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
>> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
>> the home for the project.  Since then the incubator rules have been
>> rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was
> changing from under ActiveMQ.  My comments, for example, regarding  
> Yoko that
> "this is not a Geronimo sub-project.  Incubator projects are just  
> that:
> Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at  
> graduation"
> were reiteration, not new policy.  Sam and others have said pretty  
> much the
> same thing.
> It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the  
> case that
> a project could use another PMC for its PPMC.  If there is a  
> sponsoring PMC,
> it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the
> Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new  
> projects into
> the ASF.
> Consider Derby.  Derby had a PPMC.  The DB PMC was not in charge of  
> Derby.
> The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it.  Derby went  
> into DB
> (although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP).
> Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.  It is  
> clearly the
> case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an  
> independently
> usable, separately releasable project with its own community that  
> happens to
> have some overlap with parts of Geronimo.  The same is true of a  
> number of
> projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which  
> ought to be
> separate TLPs in my view.
> Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious  
> decision
> for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects.  The
> "Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment.  What makes a  
> project
> with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area.
> 	--- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message