Re: [RESULT][POLL] drop point 12

2005-07-03 Thread Henri Yandell
We should do the same on Commons at some point. Throw out the ones that seem dead. Hen On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote: i count 4 +1's the consensus seems to be in favour of removal so that's what i'm going to do. i propose to leave retain the number by noting those that h

Re: [POLL] drop 8

2005-07-03 Thread Henri Yandell
+1 On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote: 8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper. doesn't seem very relevant. i think that it'd be simpler just to drop it. here's my +1 - robert --8<---

Re: new components

2005-07-03 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 13:13 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > Here is a stab at replacement text for 15, 17 and 18. great :) looks good but threw up some ideas... > 15-1 Any member of the community may propose a new package. To be > accepted, a package proposal must receive majority approval of the >

Re: new components

2005-07-03 Thread Phil Steitz
Here is a stab at replacement text for 15, 17 and 18. 15-1 Any member of the community may propose a new package. To be accepted, a package proposal must receive majority approval of the subproject committers and at least one committer must volunteer to serve as an initial package team member.

Re: [POLL] drop 8

2005-07-03 Thread Rahul Akolkar
+1 -Rahul On 7/3/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > On 7/3/05, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to drop this > > > > Phil > > > > robert burrell donkin wrote: > > >>8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a >

Re: new components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

2005-07-03 Thread Phil Steitz
robert burrell donkin wrote: Agreed. After a little more discussion, we should rewrite this. +1 anyone feel like jumping volunteering to come up with a draft? Working on this now... Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [

Re: [POLL] drop 8

2005-07-03 Thread Martin Cooper
+1 -- Martin Cooper On 7/3/05, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 to drop this > > Phil > > robert burrell donkin wrote: > >>8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a > >>JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper. > > > > > > doesn't se

Re: new components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

2005-07-03 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 12:27 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > Martin Cooper wrote: > > On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Interpreted literally, 17 goes against standard practice in jakarta (or >

Re: new components

2005-07-03 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 14:52 -0400, Martin Cooper wrote: > On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > > > > > > Interpreted literally, 17 goes against standard practice in jakarta (or > > > apache, to my knowledge

Re: [POLL] drop 8

2005-07-03 Thread Phil Steitz
+1 to drop this Phil robert burrell donkin wrote: 8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper. doesn't seem very relevant. i think that it'd be simpler just to drop it. here's my +1 - robert --8<-

[POLL] drop 8

2005-07-03 Thread robert burrell donkin
> 8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a > JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper. doesn't seem very relevant. i think that it'd be simpler just to drop it. here's my +1 - robert --8<-

Re: mailing lists for components [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

2005-07-03 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 14:33 -0400, Martin Cooper wrote: > On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > > 4.1 in the guidelines repeats the error that I thought was fixed in the > > > j-c guidelines saying that each p

[Jakarta Wiki] Update of "DraftCharterForWebComponentCommons" by RobertBurrellDonkin

2005-07-03 Thread Apache Wiki
Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Jakarta Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by RobertBurrellDonkin: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/DraftCharterForWebComponentCommons The comment on the change is: Deleted point 12 -

[RESULT][POLL] drop point 12

2005-07-03 Thread robert burrell donkin
i count 4 +1's the consensus seems to be in favour of removal so that's what i'm going to do. i propose to leave retain the number by noting those that have been deleted (rather than removing them). - robert - To unsubscribe,

Re: Dormant guidelines proposal?

2005-07-03 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 01:55 -0500, Curt Arnold wrote: > There has been some discussion about modifying the Logging Services > project bylaws (http://logging.apache.org/site/bylaws.html) to > address some concerns particular to the project. I was researching > the Jakarta guidelines and stumb