On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote: > > > I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was said > > to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC of 7 > > members. > > There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation. There is > absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have: > > Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2 > Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code > Struts PMC: struts and related code > Jakarta Commons PMC: ... > Tapestry PMC: ... > ... > > All without a single change to the Jakarta domain. > > No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's > legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses. We have had this confirmed > already by both Greg and Sam. The above *is* an acceptable solution to the > Board. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us. Gotya. Had been wondering why you kept pushing the multi-PMC approach. I'm +0 to this and would still be worried about what 'Jakarta' meant now. Hopefully if this happened, ant, maven, avalon, cocoon, etc would be able to join Jakarta again. Same for xerces-J, xalan-J etc. So these would basically be TLPs without the domain name? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
