[Igf-dev] Governance & Naming

[Asa Hardcastle]

governance:

I think we need to get the CLAs signed as Brett has suggested.  Any  
guidelines on project naming should be decided by this smaller  
governance group.  My suggestion is that we do this first, and then go  
about naming our own projects.  This smaller group should decide on  
things like whether or not we want to have a convention that ties the  
projects together e.g. "All projects begin with BeerAndWings, sub  
projects are denoted with a suffix indicating their language, /J /C"


as for project naming in general:


On Naming an open source project:
http://www.advogato.org/article/67.html

Here is a list of apache top level projects, many are headers for lots  
of other projects (down below the list I make my point):

HTTP Server
ActiveMQ
Ant
APR
Beehive
Cayenne
Cocoon
Commons
Continuum
DB
Directory
Excalibur
Felix
Forrest
Geronimo
Gump
Hadoop
Harmony
HiveMind
HttpComponents
iBATIS
Incubator
Jackrabbit
Jakarta
James
Labs
Lenya
Logging
Lucene
Maven
Mina
MyFaces
ODE
OFBiz
OpenEJB
OpenJPA
Perl
POI
Portals
Roller
Santuario
ServiceMix
Shale
SpamAssassin
STDCXX
Struts
Synapse
Tapestry
TCL
Tiles
Tomcat
  Turbine
Velocity
Wicket
Web Services
Xalan
Xerces
XML
XMLBeans
XML Graphics


Hmm.... seems all over the road in terms of naming conventions, yet, I  
know of, use, and refer to many of these projects all the time.  I'd  
like to note also that "HTTP Server" is actually the apache web  
server, as I am sure you all know.  So this supports Phil's point  
about not calling the ID-WSF 2 libraries "OpenLiberty." Obviously at  
the highest level (Apache foundation's list of projects) they decided  
it should not be referred to as apache, even though it is apache  
everywhere else in the world... there's a lot in a name.

more later when I have had some time to think,

asa






--
Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib
Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7




On Mar 22, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brett McDowell wrote:

> If Phil has the premise correct -- i.e. if all the WSF projects do  
> actually breakdown neatly into Toolkit, AppKit, and ProviderKit --  
> then how about..
>
> option A:
> OpenLiberty TrustFed ToolKit
> OpenLiberty TrustFed AppKit
> OpenLiberty TrustFed ProviderKit
>
> option B: (I'm just throwing something out there... it seems the  
> heart of WSF is the concept of "my services")
> OpenLiberty MyServices ToolKit
> OpenLiberty MyServices AppKit
> OpenLiberty MyServices ProviderKit
>
> option C (already one vote against this from Phil, but let's just  
> keep the options on the table until we get a decision):
> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ToolKit
> OpenLiberty OpenWSF AppKit
> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ProviderKit
>
> option D: (noting one vote for this from Phil... maybe)
> OpenLiberty Panda ToolKit
> OpenLiberty Panda AppKit
> OpenLiberty Panda ProviderKit
>
> option E ??
>
> But I have a meta-question... who should be making this decision  
> anyway?  I think with Sampo, Conor and AOL (presumably George  
> Fletcher) signing CLA's (any day now?) we finally have an official  
> independent group of contributors to take over "governance" of this  
> project.  And since this naming does impact the other IGF project we  
> need to add Phil and Prateek to that list.  So maybe only Phil,  
> Prateek, Asa, Sampo, Conor, and George need to make this decision?   
> Gentlemen, are we at that point yet?
>
> Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | vCard | Calendar
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.openliberty.org/pipermail/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org/attachments/20080322/e0bebafe/attachment.html