I'd say that the discussed scope, at least some visions of it, make it more appropriate for a top level project than apache-commons, but I'll second Henri's advice to cut a 1.0 release from jakarta-commons and draft up a scope/vision document, then make the choice based upon what feels right at the point.
I don't think it stretches the jakarta-commons or jakarta-general scope much (or at all, relative to other jakarta projects) to include a set of basic, java-based mathematical utilities--there are certainly plenty of server-side applications of that. A set of basic, not-necessarily-java-based utilities would be more appropriate in apache-commons. A more-than-basic set of utilities, in or out of java, would be more appropriate at the top level IMO. How one defines "basic" here is obviously an important part of answering this question. On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Danny Angus wrote: > > Robert wrote: > > IMHO we're now starting to forget the original > > charter. > > Gier replied: > > Starting??? :) Please, we've been stretching the charter for *years*. > > Isn't that a major contributory factor in the, how can I put it.. "concern" > expressed in some quarters about Jakarta? > And if so is it not also something we should be addressing by being > realistic about issues like this one? > > > > You're notion of sorting it out seems to be "remove from Jakarta > > community". That may be what the people involved want to do, which is > > fine by me, but if they want to stay, it behooves us on the PMC to try > > and see what we can do to help them out. > > I'd say that if there is not a _real_ justification for math being in > Jakarta which is aligned with Jakarta's mission it is our duty to Jakarta > to be realistic about math, and not simply to fudge an artificial > accomodation, avoid tough the decisons, and provide ammunition for critics > of Jakarta's organisation. > > I would then feel that I had a moral obligation to the math community to > help them find an acceptable new home, and Apache commons seems like a > perfectly reasonable suggestion. > After all if the math "mission" really is divergent from our charter then > leaving won't be a big wrench, on the other hand if it is aligned well with > the charter that is enough justification for math staying. Surely? > > d. > > - Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
