> Put Jakarta Commons as Commons. Exactly same committer, exactly same > PMCers. Hey, now you can come in. It's the opposite IMHO that > scares and > brings FUD over how the project will be managed. > > Keep in mind that Jakarta Commons had already expressed that > they wanted > that any ASF committer had access to the sandbox. > It's wierd, given that many say a sandbox isn't needed ;-) >
<snip/> > First of all, there is a big question if Commons is really > needed with > the actual mission. What *need* does Apache Commons solve that other > Commons cannot? > > Let me explain. > > - Jakarta has Jakarta Commons. > - Xml has xml-commons. > - DB has db-commons. > - Almost all projects I know of have a sandbox/scrathpad. > > Why? > > It seems that Sam is right, locality is important. > > Hmmm... but if this is right? If Jakarta will keep its > Commons, if Xml > will keep its commons, if DB will keep its commons... what > will Apache > Commons be? > This should all be in the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Basically, Apache Commons was formed by the board. The Commons PMC looked at the Jakarta Commons model and had questions about whether it would work or not across Apache (across languages). Some people said Jakarta Commons would refuse to join unless Jakarta Commons rules were adopted. Apache Commons said no, but also said they would not force Jakarta Commons to join. That is the summary from my view. My view being defined as someone who is involved with Jakarta Commons and loves it, but would also like to see Apache Commons succeed. I do not see why diversity is such a problem, given its rich history here at Apache. I like the Jakarta Commons model. But I love the idea of Apache Commons. I only hope it can succeed. I also think that all the TLP specific commons should continue to exist, because Apache Commons is attempting to serve a different purpose. Scott
