> you get an ok on [sharing and centralizing the managment
> of ASF-acceptable third party jars] from the board and/or
> the infrastructure team, and consensus across the community,
> and I'll be absolutely 100% behind any such plan.
I can't see how it would be acceptable to anyone without all of those. :-)
As for your comments regarding the quotes from Dion, he expressed himself,
you've replied, and I'm going to stay out of the middle. He can reply if/as
he wishes.
> you mean not "the guiding principles", but "the authoritive statement".
At the point where there is a repository oversight committee under the
infrastructure team, I mean guiding principles. The infrastructure team
reports directly to the ASF President, and the ASF Board. So at that point,
*I* don't have any need to refer to them as more than guiding principles.
If the ASF President and Board want to make a stronger statement, that's up
to them, but I'm not going to tie their hands with their own document.
If we are all in agreement on the idea, then I think what ought to happen
would be the formation of the group. People like Dion, yourself, and
whomever else wants to be intimately involved in providing this service to
the ASF at large. The details related to board approval of jars and
licenses, tools, techniques, etc., can be worked out by the repository group
(under a sunshine arrangement, of course).
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
