An alternate way of looking at it is whether the rest of Jakarta should have any influence on decisions made here. (According to the current rules it does).
A third way of looking at it is that the board dislikes sub-projects of sub-projects. They don't recognise the concept. They simply feel too cut-off from us. (And to some degree they have legal responsibility for our actions, so its not unreasonable for them to want to be informed)
The simplest way of thinking of it is that struts and ant and James and Log4J and... are all up there at TLP level. Commons is just as vibrant a community as these, and would do just as well at TLP.
Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rory Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have been examining the arguments for a java-only commons TLP. I am decidely +0 on the whole business, as I don't believe that there are any concrete benefits beyond some hand-wavey type of intangible "good feel" that will be magically bestowed on Jakarta commons if it takes that step. I am still a little baffled as to how people could have argued that Apache commons == Jakarta commons, when Jakarta commons is currently a sub-project of a sub-project of the Apache foundation? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Time for me to eat my words. Ritual disemboweling etc.
I was too eager to view a statement that "a subproject could brand itself as Apache Xxx providing there is no clash" (not an actual quote, just highlighting the statement) as meaning Commons could goto Apache Commons.
I took a question to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list of whether it was true that Jakarta Commons could move to commons.apache.org, and whether it would be required to accept common libraries in other languages.
Seems that there is thought that a) the dead commons.apache.org might still be a clash and b) that commons.apache.org should be language independent, so although there are no categorical rulings that we can't have a+b, they're not answers that we can take for granted either in thinking on TLP-ness.
So, many apologies for misleading things. I think some good has come of it in that it's pretty apparant that given the following two assurances:
a) Jakarta Commons can move to commons.apache.org b) Jakarta Commons can remain Java focused
there is a lot of support for Commons as a TLP, but without these two assurances there is not a lot.
For the record, I'm +1 on Stephen/Phil's point of view that a Java-only commons TLP is a +1, but otherwise it's a -1.
Hen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________ Sign up for eircom broadband now and get a free two month trial.* Phone 1850 73 00 73 or visit http://home.eircom.net/broadbandoffer
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
