On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:34:17PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:32:11PM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > I agree with all of Henri's comments below. Apache commons as a project has > > nothing to offer Jakarta commons as far as I can see. In fact it has > > disbenefits by > > - 'stealing' a name already in use > > Hang on here. Are you suggesting that when the *BOARD* chose to call this > Apache Commons, that the Board somehow "stole" the name from one of the > things that the ASF already owns? How is that possible?
I think that what is being stated is not that the board 'stole' the name, but that if it actually comes to pass in the future that the board decides to merge the two communities, as you explain later in this message, the jakarta-commons group will NOT have a choice in the matter, and the rules in the new group will be very different from the old group. > > > - forcing cross-language issues when its just not useful > > The Apache Commons is a language agnostic Commons. Not specific to Java or > to C or Python or anything else. Your use of the word "force" is misguided. > The ASF is *very* rarely about forcing anybody to do anything. It is about > providing legal frameworks for operation. Any rules that are absolutes are > there to ensure that the legal framework can do its job. Agreed. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. > > >... > > So ATM, I can't see any reason why I would vote +1 to moving Jakarta Commons > > into Apache Commons. Or perhaps I don't get a choice? > > You always get a voice. What the Apache Commons PMC and the Jakarta PMC and > the Board decides to do is a bit different. Your voice feeds into their > choices. But I cannot envision any of those groups forcing a move unless and > until it can be demonstrated that the existence of the Jakarta Commons is an > actual *problem* for the ASF. As of right now, I haven't seen anybody > suggest it is, so the Jakarta Commons will continue to exist. > > *IF* the overall ASF and/or Jakarta restructuring occur, and some kind of > flattening takes place, then I can almost positively state that there would > not be two top-level Commons projects (I really could not see a case where > the Board would want to have a language-agnostic commons *and* a > Java-specific commons). More precisely, I would vote to combine them in that > case; what the Board majority chooses... dunno, as I'm not speaking for > the other Directors and their voting choices, but I'm pretty sure it would > be combination. This is the point, I think. If the restructuring does occur, and there cannot be two top-level projects named commons, then it could be perceived that the board 'stole' the name :) So, if this is to be the eventual case (possibly), then why not start the whole thing with an existing community, with an existing set of rules and projects, and just add language-agnostic to the charter? > > To that extent, I believe it is important for people with experience in how > Jakarta Commons operates to bring that to this forum. To help the Apache > Commons project set up a structure that allows for participation for > different languages and different types of components. Commons is still > refining their detailed charter (beyond the more general one specified by > the Board) and their procedures. I also agree jakarta commoners should be involved. Some people just believe that jakarta-commons should have been used as the prototype. Scott (A firm believer in Apache Commons, however is comes about)
