Hi Andrew, thanks a lot for that mail.
> It is > fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky. I do > however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean. See my reply to Avik's mail. I didn't mean to focus. (That pun was unintentional, but I'll leave it in.) > I really don't want POI to really merge into > Jakarta (which is really now the successor to Jakarta Commons) and I > don't think the majority of the committers do either. That answers the question I was asking myself since shortly after the vote thread started. Is POI going to go independent, or is it going to merge into Jakarta? If it's going independent within a few months, there is no point in opening SVN access. > On the other > hand, I really don't think POI by itself can be a TLP as its scope is > too narrow (historically this was deliberate). I also don't think that > parts of POI have much of a future as we're moving to an XML formats I was told that vinyl is dead in the early 90s. "Starting next year, nothing will be released on vinyl anymore." I built a collection of well over 1000 records since, and there are still new releases. It's not mainstream anymore, but it exists and has it's followers. > era, but other parts certainly do. Partly because of projects like POI, > Microsoft is even moving. Once the default is to save in an XML format > then will anyone really care about POI "as it is" as more than a > migration tool. There's nothing wrong with being a migration tool. Being more than a migration tool is even better. +1 to the rest of your mail. cheers, Roland > > That being said, there is considerable interest in unified APIs for each > of these verticals (spreadsheets, documents, etc) and considerable life > in POI with a very active userbase. Many people dealing with data > formats have asked for common APIs for the various verticals that output > to the various formats. Moreover, many of us are no longer as single > minded with regards to Java as we once were (POI ruby for example). And > achieving API compatibility across these could be interesting. > > I therefore propose this: > > * Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on > restructuring POI during the next X months. (Access or otherwise) > > * POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight > procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months > > * POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal > and working out a consensus. > > (BTW that pretty much is batting 1000 on this: > http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark) > > Full disclosure: > > I've also submitted a counter proposal to the committers as an > alternative to leave apache entirely. However thus far most folks seem > to value POIs association with Apache and the opportunities afforded > them, even if they find it "difficult to work with" as one person stated > in response. I suspect TLP status would alleviate some of the mutual > snags between apache and POI (for one we could get poor Marc his access > back despite him having sent in his CLA now like 3 times including when > the project moved to Apache and for two we'd be sending our reports in > ourselves and thus have to do more proper oversight). > However, PPPPPLLLLLLEEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSSEEEE let's press the PAUSE button > until January 3rd so that we can all get very drunk and open presents > rather than jerk each other's chains in front of a computer on a mailing > list. > > -Andy > ---- > Andrew C. Oliver > Buni Luni > http://buni.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
