My knee jerk reaction to Proactively encourage TLP status" is the same as I had to one of my conservative friend who set out to
convert a family of another religion to their true religion. That is repugnant to me, and so is "Proactively encourage TLP status"
If you want to make the information available in a well documented fashion on how to go TLP
then +1. For example I am happy where Struts is now, in Jakarta. If Martin & Ted want to
expend energy making it a TLP I won't -1 it but would -0 it if that was a voting option.
For Jakarta Commons I would Strongly -1, to pull out major components like collections.
The Jakarta Commons works. It is absolutely one of the most vibrant communities around.
As one of the growing number of new PMC members, I want to focus on IP/Licensing matters.
I understand that TLP changes what we take responsibility of for Jakarta PMC,
but to me it is just one more distraction I don't need right now. I'll take each project that wants to
go TLP case by case, its their right to do that, but hope that they think long and hard about it.
-Rob
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
Background info: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
Stephen
PROPOSAL The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level Project (TLP) status.
It shall do this by - drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings - explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a subproject's rights - documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs - produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP - clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation - proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists - setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with the exact list to be determined by the dev list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
