On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:27:34PM -0500, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >... > > 2) a-c becomes an umbrella project housing a virtually independent java > > commons, a C commons, etc. I don't believe the Board or existing a-c would > > be happy with this. > > I think this is up to the Commons community. Just because a minority of > committers to Serf on the future Commons PMC want it to be non-language > centric, the majority Java community who want to remain a community ought > to be controlling their own fate.
Agreed. > Effectively, if I were to take my proposal to the A-C guys, this would be > underlined as: "The community decides. While the community is majority > Jakarta Commons, and we want to retain a language-centric separation, we > expect this to be allowed. ", or some such. Yup. >... > > 3) a-c is disbanded completely. j-c is then promoted to TLP using the > > Commons name, and Java only. > > I don't see the Board ever wanting this. It was said that A-C was created > partly because of success of J-C, so I can't see them wanting to drop > their desire for non-Java based C. Yup. The hope was for the communities to figure out a way to coordinate, work together, and learn from one another. I believe the two communites (the current A-C and J-C) have much to learn from each other. >... > > Personally I have great difficulty with #1. I believe #2 won't happen. #3 > > would be really nice, but would require some humility in recognising a > > mistake made in a-c. #5 is messy, as Commons is 'our' name before it was > > kindof stolen. #4 is challenging, but maybe possible. It wasn't stolen. The great work that J-C has done was recognized in the choice of that name. But it wasn't J-C's. There is also an XML Commons and a DB Commons. (tho I think DB Commons didn't exist at the time A-C was created) >... > I'm equally happy with your #4, but I think the difficulty is harder than > the getting #1 to happen. It's based on the assumption that projects will > go TLP, and as Tomcat is synonymous with Jakarta in many locations, I can > see why they would want to retain the brand. It's also the same as #5 in > the long run. #1 is within our control [and A-C], and not reliant on the > entire Jakarta community at large. Agreed, which is why I joined this list (with adequate filters to survive the volume :-). I'm hoping to provide a bridge, to share perspectives, between the two communities. I'd also like to learn more about J-C. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
