I refer back to my original response. apache-extras is not intended to be a way to route around legal and community policies here at the ASF. I believe that what you propose does just that regardless of the license choice and distribution mechanism. You propose using ASF infrastructure for everything except version control. From the point of view of a user of the extras code everything points to @apache.org and therefore ownership and responsibility is confused.
The argument about being "kept informed" is not valid either. The extras project is a separate project. Would you go to some pre-existing FooBar project and say "hey we are using your code we want you to move everything to ASF hardware except version control". If you did would that project say yes? Having said that, you asked specifically about ASF policy in this matter. Today there is no formal policy on this specific issue, only the opinion of this PMC, Those members of this PMC who have spoken seem to have all agreed on the community aspects I mention above. Most discussion here is around the optional GPL dependency which is not the question being asked. My conclusion, therefore, is that our "policy" is that this is not an acceptable use of extras because it routes appears to route around both legal and community policies (no non-ASF code managed by ASF PMCs and only ASF projects on apache.org infrastructure). As the ComDev PMC we cannot assert the legal position but we can assert the community one. If you feel our interpretation of the legal one is flawed and legal-discuss@ agree then I guess we should reconsider. As things stand I believe the consensus is no this is not inline with policy. Ross On 27 September 2012 22:44, Christian Müller <christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote: > I follow the exchanges with great interest. > > To make a few things more clear: > - All Camel extra components are optional and we do not > deliver/release/deploy it with our normal Apache Camel releases (and we do > not plan to do this). > - As package name, we use org.apacheextras.camel.xxx > - As Maven groupId we use org.apache-extras.camel.xxx > - The source code and hosting the source code is not an issue. > > - It's more the question on leveraging the other Apache infrastructure > (JIRA, mailing list, Confluence, may be Jenkins, ...) for Apache Extra > projects. > - The reason for this is question is convenience. 8 of the 12 Camel extra > Owners/Committers [1] are Apache Camel committers or Apache Camel PMC > member. > > [1] http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/camel-extra/people/list > > Best, > Christian > > -- -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
