Probably my largest concern has to do with ensuring that ASF style processes are being followed on all projects. This includes subjective measures such as "the health of the community" for a project, and proposal of project committers for membership in the ASF.
Then there's the legal stuff, which includes the visibility to the board, jar files, code without copyright, code with incompatible copyright, code with patent infringements, etc. Then there's the issue of support from and participation in the general ASF infrastructure. That's "where do I go for this or that", or "You're really an awesome security hack, you know, they could use some help on security@". Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:36 AM Subject: Re: The organization of xml.apache.org > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:12:25PM -0800, Ted Leung wrote: > ... > > I feel that the level of oversight that is being provided for the > > xml.apache.org projects is insufficient. > > In what way? > > Beyond ensuring nobody checks in (L)GPL'ed jars, or code without copyrights, > > > and the projects are not getting the help/guidance/whatever that they > > need from the ASF. > > Well it would be nice to have someone to ask if, say, activation.jar is > allowed in CVS, but does it take more than 7 people on pmc@ to answer > this? > > ... > > Please express your opinions! > > Let's clarify exactly what is broken before fixing it. > > > --Jeff > > > Ted > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
