2 + 3 are both a bit pointless in a charter, they only seem to have a point in a proposal for a sub-project. I'll keep them in however. 4 is also quite pointless for a charter, so leaving them in for a later discussion on removing all 3.
How would you change: "The following charter for Jakarta Commons was initially approved by the Jakarta Project Management Committee on March 19, 2001. The latest version, 1.1, was approved by the PMC on _date_." to represent your second paragraph? We could link to the CVS history page; http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-commons/commons-build/xdocs/charter.xml Hen On Sun, 23 May 2004, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: > Sections 2 and 3 are part of the "form" requested by the Jakarta PMC as > part of a sub-project proposal (this info used to live at > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html before the incubator > came into being.) I'm not sure why we'd want to remove this information, > although it might make sense to note where reality deviated from the plan. > > Also note the comment at the top the charter page. This was the specific > proposal approved by the PMC. If we want to make revisions or comments to > that charter, so be it, but let's not pretend that the revision is the > history. > > On Fri, 14 May 2004, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > > > [hopefully all these general emails won't mean that only one turns into a > > living thread] > > > > I'd like to try and get us moving forward on the Commons charter a bit. > > It's easy to turn this into a long series of misunderstood arguments, so > > my first suggestion is hopefully something very unargumentative. > > > > [cf http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html] > > > > I'm proposing that we: > > > > ** > > Remove (1.5.2) as it has never happened and is nothing our community is > > striving to make happen. This also involves a FAQ entry on the directory > > being removed. > > > > Remove (2) as this is not relevant to the charter nowadays, plus it's not > > even an accurate representation of the original components. If this > > information is deemed useful, we need to ask Craig to give us another > > history lesson and make some notes, probably elsewhere. > > > > Remove (3) as it is no longer relevant and should be documented in an > > available resources section. [ie) can a new Commons component use JIRA, > > where is our wiki etc]. > > ** > > > > I don't believe any of these are too big a deal and getting things moving > > will give us a foundation for future discussions. I think that a typical 3 > > +1 and no -1 vote should be fine for such a thing [unless anyone knows of > > obscure rules], and will plan to send out such a vote on the above if no > > discussion occurs. > > > > Hen > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > - Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
