> And it *does* seem like we're getting input from the J-C > committers (Morgan, yourself, etc). I worry more about the > XML Commons people; but then again, maybe there isn't an > active enough community to be much bothered either way. >
Not really an issue IMHO. Xml-commons is more for spec related code, or code that xerces/xalan has in common. Not much of a separate community, more just another cvs repo. > For example, I've been thinking of committer restrictions per > component, while J-C has committers as a whole. I (still) > disagree with that approach, but after the emails here, I now > understand it and can see some of its benefits. Short answer > being, "is there a synthesis we can achieve on commit privs? > [and the resulting voting rights]" I am glad that you see it. That is all I can ask for. > Seriously, I kind of fail to see the distinction. The Apache > Jakarta Project came up with a neat idea for reusable > components and called it Commons. That concept is part of the > ASF, so how could it be stolen? My impression is that the > perception of "stolen" exists only if the people involved > with J-C see it as their own concept, rather than part of a > structure that they helped to create as part of the ASF. IMO, > if the mental model was more tightly associated with the ASF, > then expanding the scope to include more ASF committers would > be seen positively (and dropping the Jakarta prefix would be > a natural part of the change in scope). The perception of 'stolen' IMHO comes from j-c not being promoted out of jakarta and its scope expanded to include what this group is attempting to do. The difference is perception. Most of j-c would have said 'wow, ASF thinks we were a good idea', rather than the 'ASF is screwing us' that you have seen. Flattery and all that... > > > So, if this is to be the eventual case (possibly), then why > not start > > the whole thing with an existing community, > > Nothing is excluding the existing community. I personally > encourage the entire Jakarta Commons communtity to participate here. Email has been sent requesting just that. > > and just add language-agnostic to the charter? > > Because the scope is expanding and Jakarta's scope is already > too large. Jakarta is already busting at the seams of the > charter specified by the Board, and expanding the Jakarta > Commons subproject will do nothing to help that. The Board > creates Projects as mechanisms to provide oversight of the > code that is developed by and for the ASF. Recognizing > Commons as a Project in its own right is a good thing. That is exactly what people are trying to say. By 'rescuing' j-c from the problems the board sees with jakarta's scope, jakarta's scope would have *decreased*, which would have been a good thing. > It is, provided that the info and experience is brought here. > If you provide all of the same ideas, concepts, and > experience here, then that is the same as using J-C as a prototype. > > I think rather than saying "used as the prototype", the > phrase you may have been seeking is "expanded to incorporate > the new scope." But as I mentioned above, the Board didn't > really see expansion as a valid approach given its larger > role at the ASF, and Jakarta's existing charter/scope. Not expanded, more 'liberated'. Greg, in general I agree with everything that has happened here, I am just trying to explain in the least offensive way possible why some people do feel this way. This is but one person's opinion. Scott
