On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > No, that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing to use Apache Extras, a > supposedly sanctioned > "associated" and not "external" effort that supposedly is amenable (per its > own explanation page > that I've cited several times and won't bother doing again) to libraries and > licenses outside of > the normal ALv2 process to host closely related Apache OODT code there and to > leverage > the org.apache.oodt namespace as part of it. > > Mark Struberg had another concrete suggestion: kudos to him for proposing > using > org.apachextras.oodt (implied). I could live with that, but don't believe I > (or anyone else) > should have to. >
I strongly prefer Mark's suggestion, and I'd like to hear more about why you think you shouldn't have to "live with it". You question what we are doing "if our own PMCs can't start up a project on Apache Extras and use org.apache.* as a namespace", and I agree that we may not be clear on exactly what the advantage of Apache Extras is over Google Code, GitHub, or wherever else. But our own PMCs can't start up a project on Apache Extras (or anywhere else) and call it an official Apache release either, and to me, that's the line that decides (socially) what can or can't use the org.apache.* namespace. (And, afaict, this *is* a social/policy question, not a legal or technical one.) Noirin
