hello,
On 2005-11-09, at 17:28 , Daniel Carrera wrote:
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
Novell, for instance, was opposed to the idea. And it makes
sense it should be: the current set up benefits Novell.
Novell was not opposed. *Michael Meeks* was opposed. He was not
speaking for Novell, and his reasons for opposing were very
developer-focused. It was a personal opinion, and I doubt Novell
would like it been seen as an official Novel position.
As it happens, Sun, so I have learned, has chosen to interpret
Michael's objection as Novell's.
One point I've been thinking is that the overall architecture of this
would be precisely that it would be "within" the OOo overall
structure.
An analogue would be java.net, which hosts lots of java projects.
OOo could thus "include," in a formal and even logical way, the
foundation.
Wouldn't that counter the goal of using the Foundation as an
opportunity to correct the governance problems in OOo? A foundatino
that is an OOo sub project seems distant from what I felt was
discussed at Koper.
Perhaps not. Sub project is putting it wrongly. The way that Java.net
works, for instance, is that there are many projects present there.
Further, "governance" means many things. As used by me, it does not
mean, say, who is present on the Community Council, but how code
contributions are processed. The former is pretty transparent--
witness this exchange--the latter less so, if only because there is
the coincidence of Sun, as the major contributor, and Sun, as the
copyright holder.
Best
Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
