On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:35:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >... > > What I haven't seen is any good arguments as to why a-c is a step forward > > for j-c and not a big step back. > > With respect to j-c, I'm not sure there is an argument for a step forward. > (there may be, but I haven't applied enuf brain cycles to be able to find it > and state it) > > With respect to the ASF�as a whole, there is definitely a step forward. If this can become an agreed upon answer to my initial question of what does A-C offer to J-C, then it looks like one of the parts of defining A-C needs to be finding a compromise solution with J-C or laying down orders to J-C. A-C PMC and Jakarta PMC would seem the ones who need to lead this, no? [ I've highlighted some +ves for J-C of joining A-C. Another one being: J-C gains the rights to go into all ASF projects to refactor Java code out [or at the very least copy out/release/hint that proejct might wanna use J-C] and not just Jakarta projects, which I think is all the current charter technically allows/suggests. Hen
