Costin Manolache wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I have a hard time from Nicola's mail figuring out what this -really- means.
Well, INAL, but Apache is made out of Projects. Jakarta is a Project, XML is a Project, etc...
Plainly put, making Ant a top-level project would automatically make it get out of the *dependency* to Jakarta and its PMC.
What 'dependency' to jakarta do you see ?
Ant -> Jakarta PMC -> board
And why removing the *dependency* between jakarta and ant be benefical to either of them ?
Mind me I'm saying that the "inside" dependency will fall, that means that Ant would not *depend* on what Jakarta says, but it would still be part of it.
Jakarta is a bit more than just a container for a dozen or so of sub-projects - it is also a community and a brand.
Who said we should kill the community? Who said we should kill the brand?
It's just a matter of being indipendent of Jakarta and having a PMC that reports *directly* to the Apache board.
And this is a benefit how ? Jakarta PMC is elected by jakarta commiters - and usually knows a lot more about jakarta projects than the apache board
( or so it seems ).
( that besides having almost 1/2 of the members commiters on ant )
Probably one of the reasons why Ant is reluctant to become what it thinks it already is... but the board will change, and you may find on the board others you don't have such an affinity with...
Honestly, I don't see how having a PMC *and* remaining under Jakarta, if ever possible, would help in any way.
And I don't see why having a PMC and remaining under jakarta are exclusive.
From a formal POV Apache is made of projects, not deep hierarchies.
I have posted an explanation on why having a PMC is important, and *that's* the goal.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
