Yes, I agree, that before 2.0 would be good.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>
> I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
> very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
> ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
> Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
> that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
> move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
> release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
>
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
