On Dec 18, 2003, at 2:35 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was said
to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC of 7
members.
There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation. There is
absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have:
Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2 Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code Struts PMC: struts and related code Jakarta Commons PMC: ... Tapestry PMC: ... ...
All without a single change to the Jakarta domain.
No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's
legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses. We have had this confirmed
already by both Greg and Sam. The above *is* an acceptable solution to the
Board. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us.
Gotya. Had been wondering why you kept pushing the multi-PMC approach.
Clue me in because I don't get it.
I'm +0 to this and would still be worried about what 'Jakarta' meant now.
Hopefully if this happened, ant, maven, avalon, cocoon, etc would be able
to join Jakarta again. Same for xerces-J, xalan-J etc.
I'm -1 to this, but it's not a -1-able thing. Projects are free to apply for top level status if they want.
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
