At this point we draft up a board resolution to amend our TLP name and description and vote on it. Then we wait till next board meeting till its official.
The next board meeting is actually Wednesday morning, so not enough time for a 72 hour vote, but that's ok. We have time. On Monday, November 19, 2012, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > So all is fine? > > What are we waiting for now? > Le 19 nov. 2012 22:39, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > a écrit : > > > > > On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > Afair the policy so far has been that all packages must be under the > TLP > > name. That was the reason why CODI also has > > org.apache.myfaces.extension.cdi and not simply org.apache.codi. That was > > the main reason for proposing two TLPs even if there is lots of overlap. > > > Not sure if this argument is still valid or if we could get an > exception > > from board though... > > > > It's as much of a rule as we want to make it. Some popular Apache > > packages that are not TLPs: > > > > - org.apache.derby > > - org.apache.torque > > - org.apache.yoko > > - org.apache.xbean > > - org.apache.woden > > - org.apache.neethi > > > > If you use a clear brand, it's not a problem. If you do > > "org.apache.naming", that's awfully frowned upon. :) > > > > If we want to change package names on code we can do that, but there > > certainly won't be anyone forcing us to do that. > > > > > > -David > > > > > -- Sent from my iPhone
