On Dec 23, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/22/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A simple one-liner similar to Geir's "No other ASF project
or podling in the architecture space is based on Jini"
is enough I think...
This is getting off-topic, but really why do we care?
We don't. As I've said many times, having competing projects
IS good. All I've said is that when proposals come in they
should simply acknowledge it and mention how/why they are
different.
And, for what it's worth, what is the sense of going
through issues and learning lessons (I'm thinking
CeltixFire/CXF primarily at this point) if not to make
adjustments to avoid them in the future.
2 things we learned from that:
1. Podlings that appear to "compete" with other
podlings or projects create friction, either
rightly or wrongly (I say wrongly, of course).
So efforts should be made to reduce that.
Simple acknowledge is a nice easy way to
do that.
2. The relationship between the initial committer
list and initial PPMC is "vague", or, at least,
not clear enough that we had different people
(one of which was a Mentor) have differing views
and who was actually part of the PPMC.
Again, why not simply avoid this potential
by making it explicit.
I really fail to see how all that is such a big deal.
We're talking an additional 2 sentences....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
