Re: turbine.apache.org?

On 5/19/07, Scott Eade <[email protected]> wrote:

> What you are really hinting at is that jakarta needs to find a home for
> all of it's current sub-projects and that jcs is one of the these that
> does not really have strong ties, community or otherwise, to any of the
> projects currently spawning out of jakarta.

It was more of a random thought - but yes, we do need to be thinking
about where JCS's direction lies.

> So as I see it there are really four options:
>
>    1. Approach db torque as a possible new home.  In my opinion this is
>       less than ideal since the association is relatively arbitrary and
>       it would in effect be asking to become a sub-sub-project again (as
>       it was when it previously lived under turbine).
>    2. Approach the new turbine TLP as a possible new home.  Again, I
>       think this is a relatively arbitrary association.
>    3. Propose to become a TLP.  This isn't really an option I think -
>       jcs doesn't have the community to support it.

An argument I have here is that if a project can't be a TLP then it
can't be a Jakarta subproject. ie)
The way we treat Jakarta subprojects now is pretty much the same as a
TLP - if you don't have a large enough slice of the PMC performing
oversight then it's a problem. Large enough = 3; and while we allow
that it does seem tight for a TLP.

>    4. Approach commons about jcs becoming a releasable component.  To me
>       this seems like it might be the best way to go as it would not
>       bury jcs under an arbitrarily unrelated project, but rather it
>       would include it in a collection of useful components where it
>       could gain better exposure than it currently does.

Commons would mean merging dev (and probably user) mailing lists into
commons-dev/commons-user. That's the biggest change.

Hen