There are two aspects of this situation that I want to highlight: First, there's a policy tension at the heart of the whole Apache Extras concept that has me puzzled.
I could point to a raft of messages from board members expressing extremely vehement views in opposition to 'circumventing license restrictions via github.' The idea that a PMC might take active steps to put code elsewhere to address license restrictions was, at least in the rhetorical moments in question, anathema. Having read that email, if I were a PMC chair, I wouldn't what's proposed here without an explicit board approval. The implicit policy on 'extras' seemed to be that it was a place for outsiders to park code that, for whatever reason, wasn't contributable -- NOT a place for PMCs to park code that couldn't live in Apache source control. Second, I wonder about the proposed governance and logic of this whole 'java package id rules' business. Here's a scenario: someone from outside Apache fills out the form, creates a project, and *forks some Apache project into it.* Bingo, 'org.apache.*'. What group of volunteers is signed up to notice and police this? For that matter, are we quite sure that the policy is a good idea? Package IDs in java tend to be sticky, to avoid pointless incompatibility. How can we say to people, 'The Apache license says that you can do whatever you want with this code -- except fork it at our affiliated site?' org.apache.oodt is not a trademark, at least, I sure hope it isn't. If we're going to try to control it on apacheextras, don't we need to go bugging every fork of every project on github?
