On 4/3/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've got a question: If we have commons.apache.org, what will be the difference to jakarta.apache.org, apart from the missing projects? Why do we expect that c.a.p will work, although we assume that j.a.p didn't?
I had three answers to this in my first email, here's a rewording/summary to see if I can explain them better: 1: The inactive parts of Jakarta is a millstone around the neck of the active parts. Trying to reorganize such things is a battle that I don't think is worth fighting (so your missing projects difference above). 2: Even if Jakarta does flatten down somewhat, it'll still have a huge umbrella type PMC who care for the name and history, but aren't involved in the remaining projects. So a c.a.p will have a much more focused PMC. 3: I believe that hanging around is just keeping the old broken system alive, us moving to c.a.p would be a big step in driving a Jakata solution along. The other solution is the 'promote all of Commons up to Jakarta Subprojects, and groupings and all that jazz' that we talked over a year ago; but I just don't think that's going to happen. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
