(1) language-dependence
Suppose we have a TLP called "commons", and someone then creates a common perl or python or ... library. Do we then include that in "commons" too, and have discussions about this module on the shared commons email list?
No, thats why I am in favour of a TLP now, and wasn't before.
(2) maintainer numbers and PMC membership
I believe that the vast majority of commons components are in this category. TLP only changes this is that we can't hide and pretend that we have the support we don't have. Certainly, Jakarta is no longer a significant parent in my mind for committers - that ceased a long while back.I've been rather concerned recently by the number of jakarta-commons projects whose pool of active maintainers has shrunk to 1 or even zero.
I suspect that a Commons TLP would want to have a fairly open committ policy by other TLP committers as now.I presume that if commons becomes a TLP then a new PMC would be formed for commons only. In that case, issues with specific commons projects (such as lack of maintainers) may not produce as much enthusiasm to fix them because the commons-pmc may not include representatives of the major projects using the commons libs. And the major users of the libs (eg tomcat) may not be members of [EMAIL PROTECTED] and therefore not have the authority to fix things when they need/want to.
(3) benefits?Grow up as a community, and stop pretending we're just a set of services to other 'big' projects.
But as I said, I don't have the energy to actually make it happen, other than voting +1.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
