[RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

> >> I'm +1 and -1.
> >>
> >> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
> >> necessary, but not unreasonable.
> >>
> >> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
> >> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
> >> going the wrong direction.
> >
> > Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
> > your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
> > VelocityTools? :)
>
> Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users,
> and struts didn't want it. We didn't create a replacement for struts.
> And yeah, it grew in scope.
>
> DVSL was similar. Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it
> was home grown.
>
> And "Billy did it too!" isn't really a good reason to do it :)

Agreed. And neither do i think "Johnny couldn't do it" is really a
good reason not too do it. :)

> > And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
> > that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
> > for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
> > projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
> > or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
> > Velocity.
>
> How do you draw the line?

That's the real question here. I'd love to hear good thoughts and
suggestions on this. I wrote/modified the proposal as well as i
could, but i would very much appreciate more specific feedback on the
wording of the charter-ish stuff in there. Of course, i'm probably
explaining my thoughts on this question more clearly in these
discussions than i did in that document... So, to summarize, the
"line" should be drawn:

- On a case by case basis.
- Carefully by the participating members of the Velocity PMC
- To the exclusion of projects which simply use or support Velocity,
without being explicitly and primarily built for use with the Velocity
template engine and/or firmly upon the core Velocity codebase.
- To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have no
lasting interest and investment in the health and development of the
core Velocity codebase.

How's that sound?

> >> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
> >> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
> >
> > And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
> > being here would be just about them having the foundation and
> > infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
> > community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
> > organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
> > Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
> > the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
> > interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
> > member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
> > decisions.
>
> Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer.

I would love it to be. Please help!

> >> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
> >> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
> >
> > Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
>
> That's not obvious to me.

Hopefully you mean that "wasn't" obvious to you. I've gone to some
pains to explain this... :)

> geir
>
> >
> >> geir
> >>
> >>
> >> Nathan Bubna wrote:
> >> > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
> >> >
> >> > +1 votes:
> >> > Nathan Bubna
> >> > Martin van den Bemt
> >> > James Mitchell
> >> > Henri Yandell
> >> > Jorg Schaible
> >> > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> >> > Will Glass-Husain
> >> > Torsten Curdt
> >> > Rony G. Flatscher
> >> > Jesse Kuhnert
> >> > Dion Gillard
> >> > Daniel Rall
> >> > Matthijs Lambooy
> >> > Niall Pemberton
> >> > Claude Brisson
> >> > Malcolm Edgar
> >> > Christoph Reck
> >> >
> >> > +0 votes:
> >> > -none-
> >> >
> >> > -1 votes:
> >> > -none-
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> >> > those votes are binding. :)
> >> >
> >> > thanks, everyone!
> >> >
> >> > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> >> >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> >> >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> >> >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
> >> >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
> >> >> board. So...
> >> >>
> >> >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
> >> >>
> >> >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
> >> >> thread:
> >> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
> >> >>
> >> >> And the vote happens here:
> >> >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> >> >> [ ] +0 I don't care
> >> >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>