incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Vinoski <>
Subject Re: Outside view on incubator policy to initial committer list
Date Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:36:17 GMT
Sorry, Leo, but I don't see the point of your message below making  
statements about CXF that are wholly untrue.

First, CXF is corporate? That's incorrect, given that it's purely the  
combination of two separate open source projects, Celtix and XFire.  
Celtix was developed completely under the ObjectWeb community, and  
XFire was developed under Codehaus.

Second, CXF is nothing but a bunch of buzzwords? I've personally been  
working for over 15 years now with numerous people in various  
middleware communities on the technologies and techniques that have  
led to what's going into CXF. Over the years those communities have  
delivered a variety of commercial and open source systems based on  
those techniques that run every single day, often for years at a  
time, in production. I can assure you that these approaches are quite  
far from being just buzzwords. You very likely use such systems every  
single day, in fact, perhaps without knowing it -- whenever you make  
a phone call or carry out a financial transaction, for example.  
(Coincidentally, Mark Little, one of the people directly affected by  
this whole issue, has done tons of work in this area over the years  
as well.)

Lastly, CXF has strong champions like Dan D. and Dan K. working on  
it, along with some strong committers. I have no doubt they'll  
continue to work with their mentors to make CXF a success.


On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Leo Simons wrote:

> Hey Martijn,
> do keep sending these e-mails. Less replies doesn't mean that its  
> less valuable.
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 9:38 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> Just to pose an outsider view, being new to the ASF and not to hijack
>> the discussion on the CFX/CeltiXFire, I would like to share my views
>> on the policy of the incubator.
> I'm gonna respond in the generic rather than specific points.
> Rest assured, the whole CXF thread doesn't apply to projects like  
> Wicket. Where wicket was a solid open source community already, CXF  
> was an attempt to start something by merging something corporate  
> with something open source, pour in some unknowns, and then hope  
> for the best.
> Where wicket's technology space is essentially well-understood by  
> most incubator PMC members (and asf peeps world wide, most likely),  
> the stuff CXF focusses on is still buzzword-ridden and thus well- 
> avoided by many.
> Do you really think a wicket contributor would've waited two months  
> for his account if the people around him would've been happily  
> committing code? Do you think you would've? I would guess board@  
> would've known about it by then, if not slashdot...
> ...It is simply a world of difference. Which makes writing a  
> single, sane, understandable, clear, permanent, policy for both  
> (well, n, there's a new world every time there's a new project)  
> quite hard (I've never understood why we try, but that's another  
> subject). For example, where I'll happily go and weigh what wicket  
> contributors contributed to wicket before it came to apache  
> (especially if those contributors rub my nose in it), I'm not gonna  
> care a rat's ass what Joe Corporate Developer Who Is Unknown To  
> Google Or contributed to a corporate codebase before his  
> company came to apache.
> Bluntly, a project like Wicket starts at 90% "community clearance  
> done" (just some IRC things to convince people of ;) ), that other  
> project starts at -20%-100% depending on which company it came from.
> In the end, this means you don't put your trust into the process.  
> You put your trust into the people that make that process work, and  
> into processes where what those people say and do (and vote)  
> matters above and beyond most (some of it is legal shtuff, can vote  
> all you like there, ain't gonna help) process description.
> Which, getting back to CXF, is now getting me really worried, since  
> its champion and most active mentor resigned from his position.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message