On 1/2/02 7:47 PM, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, keep me copied since I'm not currently subscribed to > general@jakarta > Why not ? :) > "Andrew C. Oliver" wrote: > >>> I don't see any convincing reason to bring POI to Jakarta, unless I see >>> that >>> you have a Jakarta PMC member champion your cause. Stefano's >>> recommendation >>> to you isn't enough, he or someone else needs to be a committer and >>> interested in working and overseeing your project. > > I do. > >> I see. Thank you, for taking the time to consider the prospect and >> provide feedback. >> >>> Did you read: >>> >>> <http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html> >>> >>> -jon >> >> Yes I did. The guidelines lay out how to propose/approve a project, >> they do not seem to preclude proposing that members/commiters look at >> the project, comment and consider a possibly supporting a proposal. > > We initially talked about moving this code to xml.apache because I think > it would give us a great technical advantage, expecially for migrating > all the existing legacy data encoded in Office formats to the web. > Having the ability to edit XML content directly from M$ Office is > something that many of our users would *scream* to be able to do. > > At the same time, I suggested Andrew to talk about it here instead of > xml.apache.org because importing/exporting Office formats back and > forward from XML is only one of the possible uses of such a technology > (indexing office formats using Lucene is another darn good example of > use that currently requires big bucks commercial software!) > So why not to XML.apache? >> My apologies if I've gone about that the wrong way. What would you >> suggest is the more appropriate way to do so? > > Interpreting Jon's words with the provided context as I know him, he is > afraid of you guys lacking the necessary community management skills > that are required in all Apache projects in order to keep the process > going and probably didn't see the importance of such a codebase under > the jakarta mission. > > Whether or not this codebase is big/strong/good/sane/future-proof enough > to be a full jakarta subproject, I don't know, up to you to decide, but > we have: > > 1) a working codebase licensed under an ASF-compatible license and > willing to be donated to the ASF along with copyright and all that. > 2) another Apache community (Cocoon's) *very* excited about integrating > this technology > 3) two very active developers (the sourceforge logs tell us about it) > 4) a sponsoring ASF member (myself) willing to take care about helping > bootstrapping the community. > > Reading the current guidelines, community-wise, I see no obstacles in > the creation of such a subproject. > > Technically speaking, since POI is more or less a codec library (not > useful by itself), it could probably be better placed under > jakarta-commons. In that case, even less community requirements would be > needed, even if I would still like to appear as a sponsoring member for > that codebase. > > Sorry if this wasn't clear from the start. > > Comments? Why is it appropriate for Jakarta? That's the missing piece for me. You said that the Cocoon community is excited about it, it could be important for data conversion in XML land... geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "He who throws mud only loses ground." - Fat Albert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
