Hi Jukka! Thanks for this very constructive post!
I'm not a native english speaker, but even I understand the point with not using JSR-330 but a more 'descriptive' wording :) What about the following? > WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best > interests of the Foundation and consistent with the > Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management > Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of > open-source software related to the Content Bean Validation > Specification and its implementation as Apache BeanValidation > and extensions for distribution at no charge to the public. Which leads me to another point which lets me think that we should cancel the vote and restart after we cleaned up the wording. The current proposal erroneous had "Apache Bean Validation" as project name. This is a failure as the projects name always have been "Apache BeanValidation" (without a space) or short "Apache BVAL". I really like to change this in the proposal and restart the vote. Neither "Bean Validation" nor "BeanValidation" nor "BVAL" are trademarked yet, but "Bean Validation" (with space) might be hard to defend as trademark (as it's also the name of the spec itself [1]) WDYT? We should Cancel the vote and fix those issues, right? txs and LieGrue, strub [1] http://jcp.org/en/jsr/summary?id=303 ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> > To: general <general@incubator.apache.org> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 12:08 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Recommend graduating Apache Bean-Validation (BVAL) as a > TLP > > Hi, > > +1 to graduate, with the following note: > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: >> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best >> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the >> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management >> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of >> open-source software related to creating an implementation >> compliant with JSR-303 and a library of pre-developed validators >> and extensions for distribution at no charge to the public. > > As noted by others, the project scope could use some clarification. > > Also, rather than referring specifically to "JSR-303", it would > probably be better to refer to "the Bean Validation API" to avoid > tying the project to a specific version of the API. For example the > Apache Jackrabbit resolution [1] referred to "the Content Repository > for Java Technology API" instead of "JSR-170" which would by now > (with > JSR-283 and JSR-333 defining updated API versions) be outdated. > > [1] > http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_03_15.txt > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
