Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> My guess is that when all strictly sub-project related tasks
> are delegated to the committers, the PMC could fulfill its
> role even in the presence of many, say 10 to 20 sub-projects.
> Am I missing anything obvious? Cheers, Ceki
Not that I can tell.
Morgan Delagrange wrote:
>
> Placing Servlet-related projects in one place and other
> server-related projects in another place seems to invite too
> many implementations of the same idea, because the developers
> don't interface with one another.
Economics of open source development is a weird and wonderful thing. There
is no scarsity of talent for worthy projects. For that reason, I don't
much care if there are separate implementations of such things as string
utilities in each subproject. But I *do* care if each subproject hoards
its own pool of database connections.
And I don't much care whether database connections is considered a
servlet-related or not.
Ted Husted wrote:
>
> >Right, but the Jakarta PMC chairman objects to that definition.
>
> I'm not sure if Sam Ruby has actually "objected" or not.
In the final analysis, it doesn't much matter what the chairman thinks.
Anybody can pull together a proposal, name themselves as a chairman, and
bring it before the board. If you get a majority of committers for any
existing subproject to sign on, you get to keep the project.
I've polled Ant. I'm watching here. I plan to take steps to increase the
diversity of the existing PMC.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
