On 5/19/07, Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What you are really hinting at is that jakarta needs to find a home for
all of it's current sub-projects and that jcs is one of the these that
does not really have strong ties, community or otherwise, to any of the
projects currently spawning out of jakarta.
It was more of a random thought - but yes, we do need to be thinking
about where JCS's direction lies.
So as I see it there are really four options:
1. Approach db torque as a possible new home. In my opinion this is
less than ideal since the association is relatively arbitrary and
it would in effect be asking to become a sub-sub-project again (as
it was when it previously lived under turbine).
2. Approach the new turbine TLP as a possible new home. Again, I
think this is a relatively arbitrary association.
3. Propose to become a TLP. This isn't really an option I think -
jcs doesn't have the community to support it.
An argument I have here is that if a project can't be a TLP then it
can't be a Jakarta subproject. ie)
The way we treat Jakarta subprojects now is pretty much the same as a
TLP - if you don't have a large enough slice of the PMC performing
oversight then it's a problem. Large enough = 3; and while we allow
that it does seem tight for a TLP.
4. Approach commons about jcs becoming a releasable component. To me
this seems like it might be the best way to go as it would not
bury jcs under an arbitrarily unrelated project, but rather it
would include it in a collection of useful components where it
could gain better exposure than it currently does.
Commons would mean merging dev (and probably user) mailing lists into
commons-dev/commons-user. That's the biggest change.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
