On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:23 AM -0400 Henri Yandell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From a Jakarta Commons view, I think we should experiment with ASF Commons > > and see how it fits. I'd like to see ORO/Regexp merge into one project in > > ASF Commons, and for APR to move over to ASF Commons. > > Okay, there's a size factor that you've missed. I believe we've always > maintained that if a Commons component could be self-sufficient, it should be > spun off into its own TLP. So, I don't think we'd have a problem 'spinning' > off a component from Commons if it got to be 'too big.' > > I believe APR certainly satisfies the size component where it doesn't need to > be under Commons. It has a group of developers and community that can manage > it successfully. -- justin Sounds great. Would be nice to outline an exit-strategy in the STATUS. The developer/community clause you suggest sounds like incubation to me, not Commons. Size is good, but I'd like to know how we measure it, or the ways in which we can measure it. I'm not looking for hard numbers, just something that states expected reasons for exit'ing, and how an exit occurs. Jakarta-Commons has never really actively managed the exit strategy, though I'll have to dig into archives to find out how Cactus managed to leave JC. Things like HttpClient have the activity/community to happily leave JC, but as a project it is such a good fit in JC. Jelly has the size/complexity to leave JC, but probably not the active community (I could be sluring Jelly's name here, I think it might have a lot of invisible activity). Hen
