> > WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in > > the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with > > the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management > > Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of > > open-source software related to Java software development tools > > which are predicated on the use of Maven's Project Object Model (POM), > > for distribution at no charge to the public. > > i think that is an appropriate narrowing of scope, though it > seems a bit self-referential. > > so let's start from here, shall we? is the above wording satisfactory > to the maven people? is it satisfactory to the board? if not in either > case, let's try to constructively fix it, and leave personalities out of > it. let's work *together*.
It is reasonable. My only concern is that defining it as POM centric may be too restrictive. I have always seen maven as a suite of project management / analysis / comprehension tools which aim to be simple to take advantage of yet flexible to extend (in other words, the most bang for your buck). The POM has been a key factor in meeting these goals, but in some ways is an implementation detail. Already two of the seed projects we are interested in (the SCM abstraction and the artifact download mechanism) are intended to be used by maven, but also other projects, and thus independent of the POM. So my question: is there anything preventing the project from reevaluating and refining our charter in the future as the project evolves? Is it even neccesary or do we just assume a project will evolve and that is just the way it is? -- jt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
