Time for me to eat my words. Ritual disemboweling etc. I was too eager to view a statement that "a subproject could brand itself as Apache Xxx providing there is no clash" (not an actual quote, just highlighting the statement) as meaning Commons could goto Apache Commons.
I took a question to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list of whether it was true that Jakarta Commons could move to commons.apache.org, and whether it would be required to accept common libraries in other languages. Seems that there is thought that a) the dead commons.apache.org might still be a clash and b) that commons.apache.org should be language independent, so although there are no categorical rulings that we can't have a+b, they're not answers that we can take for granted either in thinking on TLP-ness. So, many apologies for misleading things. I think some good has come of it in that it's pretty apparant that given the following two assurances: a) Jakarta Commons can move to commons.apache.org b) Jakarta Commons can remain Java focused there is a lot of support for Commons as a TLP, but without these two assurances there is not a lot. For the record, I'm +1 on Stephen/Phil's point of view that a Java-only commons TLP is a +1, but otherwise it's a -1. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
