Fwd: [college] Next president of the ObjectWeb College of Architects

[Alexandre Lefebvre <alexandre.lefebvre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel.Cecchet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mer nov 26, 2003  11:21:23 Europe/Paris
> To: Alexandre Lefebvre <alexandre.lefebvre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Philippe Merle <Philippe.Merle@xxxxxxx>, college@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [college] Next president of the ObjectWeb College of 
> Architects
>
> Alexandre,
>
> > could you precise your position about the current absolute and 
> > complete mess regarding project hosting.
> >
> > To be more precise in my question, http://solutions.objectweb.org and 
> > http://forge.objectweb.org/softwaremap/full_list.php give two 
> > different lists of projects.
> > It is, even for me, impossible to understand which of those projects 
> > are simply hosted and do not commit to anything in terms of 
> > architecture and which of those projects "play the game" of 
> > contributing and following The ObjectWeb Architectural Vision.
> >
> > During the conference last week, several people commented that 
> > ObjectWeb is looking more and more like a middleware sourceforge 
> > hosting of all sorts of stuff, for which the only link is that they 
> > can be categorized as middleware.
> >
> > What do you intend to do to solve this mess ?
>
> My current understanding is that http://solutions.objectweb.org are 
> the projects that really fit in the ObjectWeb architectural vision 
> (but there is still a lot of work to be done to define the 
> architectural vision) and the Forge could be considered as a project 
> incubator for projects that seem of interest for us but that are not 
> mature enough to fit yet into the ObjectWeb architecture.
>
> We need to do a real architecture work to exhibit a better 
> classification of projects. 'Application Platforms', 'Database 
> Connectivity', 'Interoperability' and 'Software Engineering' do not 
> clearly reflect architectural issues. We need to expose themes that 
> are of interest for the ObjectWeb community (note that projects might 
> cover several themes) so that contributors (or new project submitters) 
> can have a better comprehension of 'architecture working groups' 
> inside ObjectWeb.
> New project proposals should not be restricted to a 5 lines 
> description of the project but also a real effort explaining how this 
> new project will re-use or contribute to existing ObjectWeb components 
> and how it will fit in the ObjectWeb architectural vision. It is not 
> currently possible to achieve this because even inside the college it 
> is not clear what the ObjectWeb vision is (if any).
> We should define asap 'architecture working groups' (that may match 
> Osmose working groups) that identify architectural challenges that we 
> want to address. Architecture meetings should become workshops around 
> these identified themes and a place to discuss architecture. Note that 
> we should not define "artificial" working groups but build groups with 
> people who really have common interests and want to discuss together. 
> It is also possible to identify themes of interest for visibility even 
> if there is currently no contributor to be backed by a working group.
>
> Sorry for this structure-less email, but I tried to express my current 
> ideas about things to think about to redefine to college role.
>
> Emmanuel

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: Binary data