If moving commons TLP is just a "twisted" (maybe a bad choice of a word) way to come back to jakarta.apache.org in the end, I am -1 on the TLP move..
We currently have 2 projects moving TLP (Turbine and POI) and after that we need to start thinking about every other project at Jakarta. So if the goals is to make commons Jakarta, we should aim for that, instead of artificially trying to accomplish that. If I am not mistaken the real goals/questions are : - Fix oversight issues - Be more transparent for the board - Move towards a community with the same focus (= eg reusable java components) - Be able to say in one sentence what Jakarta is about (is consequence of above) - See where we can fit project that are in maintenance mode or not actively supported anymore. - How to handle projects that don't fit well within the new focus, but work pretty well as part of Jakarta (are people waiting for being on eg 15 PMC's to be able to support these projects) - And Apache wide : is there only a place for projects that have a "healthy" community ? Mvgr, Martin Danny Angus wrote: > On 5/14/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As my random suggestion that Ted quoted points out, you can have a PMC >> without their having to be TLP. Least I was told that a couple of >> years ago either on board@ or face to face, so we could do the >> following: >> >> * Create the Jakarta Commons PMC, without changing the website (or >> even the svn maybe). >> * Continue to encourage Jakarta subprojects to move to TLP, go into >> maintenance or move over to other PMCs. >> * Reach a point at which we can end the Jakarta PMC, or federate or >> whatever. > > Do you mean that the resources can then be handed over to the > Jakarta-commons (or whatever) PMC? > I'm in favour of that idea, jakarta==jakarta-commons is the option > which I think makes most sense of all for the future of Jakarta. > > 1/ it preserves a valuable brand > 2/ commons embodies the original ethos of Jakarta > 3/ commons (as we've seen hints of) still actively depends (c.f > passively benefiting) upon the Jakarta brand. > > To close down the project and hand the "brand" to another PMC would > also meet all but the most draconian interpretation of what the reorg@ > discussions suggested needed to be done about the problem of Jakarta. > > d. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
