On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote: > > >>Huh! Is this not very self centered? Surely we should be asking what is best > >>for ours customers/users. > > > > > > The committers are the chief consumers :) At least, Apache Commons seems > > to have the same concepts as Jakarta Commons in that respect, that ASF > > projects are the chief consumers with external consumers being a major > > bonus point. > > > > ie) APR exists for ASF C projects, and not for C in general. > > Us Subversion developers would probably dissagree with you there... APR > is used in a number of non-ASF projects. Yep, but subversion developers are not ASF developers [at least not wearing their ASF developer hats]. The real question here is: Jakarta Commons exists for Jakarta [in the charter]. XML Commons for XML [I think]. Does ASF Commons exist for ASF, or is it a TLP aiming at contributors. If an ASF project donates some code to ASF Commons, and the people in the ASF Commons community make a decision based on user feedback, is the original ASF project able to veto these, or have a larger say? This has happened in Jakarta Commons. Code is donated, the original donaters are not actively monitoring the code [and not a part of the community therefore]. When simple changes are made that break their API, they feel naturally aggrieved. The basic philosophy of the Commons is what drives the settlement here. ASF or the People. Hen
