In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .com.au>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I think something folks are missing is that if J-C moves to A-C, then >> all J-C committers become A-C PMC Members and can change the rules that >> don't make sense once A-C has incorporated J-C. For example, and it's > >I'm failing to see what extra oversight this brings us.
What percentage of J-C committers are currently on the Jakarta PMC? What percentage of Jakarta PMC members are J-C committers? The percentage would be 100% for both in A-C. In any case, my personal view is not that J-C derives any immediate benefit from a move, but that Jakarta and the ASF as a whole does. Looking from the ouside in it makes sense to me; looking from the inside out the gain isn't apparent. >Jakarta Commons is more than about providing common components to Jakarta. >It provides them to TLPs as well. Apparently the "hypothetical" and "expository" qualifiers in my comment were not sufficiently clear. I never said or attempted to imply that Jakarta Commons was only about providing common components to Jakarta. Why would I think that when the code bases I've contributed to are all used by other TLPs? In any case, your point makes a case for moving out of Jakarta. However, my intent was to express that the arguments based on "I don't like how A-C is organized" are specious because we get to change the way it is organized. Anyway, the whole matter comes down to differences in perception of the current state of affairs and different predictive models about the outcome of various courses of action. As I've already expressed my opinion (and my vote on the codec move), I have to choose to use the rest of my limited time to attend to pending code-related items I've had to put off for too long, rather than continue to clarify my commentary. daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
