>From the responses above, it does not look like there is sufficient support to move ahead with a TLP proposal. The main reasons to consider this, IMHO, are getting out of the "subprojects of subprojects" world and tightening up a bit on oversight. If others do not feel that this is a big deal, then we can just keep things as they are.
It would be a good idea, though, for us to take stock of the components again like we did when we were expanding the Jakarta PMC last year to make sure we had adequate oversight for each one. For those who do not follow the incubator list, these threads http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111064442500001&r=1&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=111091816015999&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111091788800002&r=1&w=2 make for interesting reading. In typical apache style, there are diverse opinions presented, but most seem to agree that the "rule of 3" has a sound basis and support in the larger ASF community. What that means to us is that unless we have at least *three* committers actively reviewing commits, paricipating in discussions, voting on action items, etc. for each of our components, then we are not providing sufficient oversight. In the current setup "we" formally means the Jakarta PMC. I think that Stephen's point on the "Apache Commons" thread was that TLP-ness would make those who end up on the <insert name> PMC more obviously and directly accountable for oversight. Brett pointed out that it would force us to think more thematically about what "belongs" in the project. I think both Stephen and Hen have talked about ways to organize things better in the past. I agree with all of these points. Of course, we can address the oversight problem without becoming a TLP and I suppose that is what we should be focused on now. I know that I am as much to blame as anyone for the current state. I can't remember how we did it last year, but it would probably be a good idea to do some sort of a poll to find out who is watching what. I will volunteer to tally things up and summarize if others think this is a good idea and are willing to participate. Its too bad that the name issue has to muck up the discussion, because that should not be the driving consideration. As we learned in endless naming discussions on the directory project, we don't have to keep [java package name <-> apache project name] as a 1-1 mapping. We could call the TLP "Apache Foo" and keep the packages named just as they are, which I agree with Martin is an obvious necessity. We "own" the org.apache.commons *Java* namespace now, and there is no reason that whatever fluffy animal or j-concoction name that we chose as a TLP name would have to munge its way into the package names. Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
