From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > fostered to scratch the itch of another community, Jakarta. And within > > commons, mini-communities were formed around each component. There's an > > interesting fractal-like structure to it, and one that joins unrelated > > Jakarta subprojects in interesting ways. I think commons glued lots of > > jakarta sub-projects together. While I think that a-c could be a good > > idea, I fear the difference may be that the communities you are trying to > > bring together don't have enough in common. People have been learning > > this the hard way (for example, Yugoslavia...). > > I think you're misunderstanding our goals here. We're not trying to force > anyone to come together. We're offering an alternative organizational > structure to J-C that may be more conducive to certain communities. If a > component is happy in J-C land, it can stay there. But, if they want to > truly be able to manage the project themselves (as I believe each project > should), then I think A-C is a compelling alternative. -- justin
What I see and what I fear is having the control of the projects which I currently have being taken away and placed in the hands of people who have committed no code, have answered no user queries, don't use the language (Java) and have no sense of the complex component history and personality matrix of the commons community. Stephen
