Can we please separate the two different topics being discussed here?
The original purpose of this discussion was to see if there is general
concensus that a Webapp Commons (or whatever name we end up with) is a
good idea. If we think it is, then we need to develop a charter, come up
with a name, and officially make the proposal to the PMC. We also need to
discuss other aspects, such as whether or not we want to follow the
Jakarta Commons model, with separate Proper and Sandbox components.
Once we've got to that point, we can have discussions about the various
sources from which code might be contributed. Some of those will be from
inside of Jakarta, or other ASF projects, and some might be from external
sources. IMHO, the discussion of potential external sources and potential
new ASF committers is premature at this point. I think we need to get off
the ground first.
Finally, I'll point out that any substantive contributions would need to
come in through the incubator. That being the case, we're not in any
position to make judgements or promises, here and now, about what can be
brought in and / or who may or may not become committers on the new
subproject.
(Frank, I am *not* trying to shut you out. I'm simply trying to get the
new subproject off the ground without complicating things by discussing
external elements prematurely.)
--
Martin Cooper
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
that's understandable but is likely to cause wrinkles in the approval
process. a subproject needs a name and a charter before it can be
approved. no guarantees could be offered since accepting new committers
is something that sould be delegated to the new community.
I definitely see the conundrum.
You touched on something too that I hadn't even brought up directly... If I'm
going to give up the name, and end my project and contribute all the code
I've written, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask to be a committer on
the new Jakarta project.
I may be mistaken, but I thought part of the approval process is a list of
initial committers? I thought I had seen that at one point on the new
project proposal paperwork. If so, I'd say that could take care of this part
of things because I could be named a committer initially, then everything
else as far as names and initial code goes falls in to place pretty easily.
anyone have any opinions about this?
If the above isn't true, one possible suggestion is to proceed with a
contingent name... The contingency being the community accepting me as a
committer. There would still be a name in reserve if that should not happen.
I hope I'm not coming across like an a**hole here trying to worm my way in...
I believe what I'm saying is reasonable, if anyone disagrees please feel free
to tell me so.
if you could leave it a little while before changing the name of your
project to WP4J, that might give us some time to prepare the documents
in...
I actually didn't mean I would change my project name... In my mind, there
are three possible paths here...
One is that the Jakarta project takes my name, and my projects ends and all
the code is contributed. Two is that the Jakarta project takes a completely
different name and I still end my project and contribute all the code. Third
is that my project continues as-is and the Jakarta project takes a completely
different name.
There is the fourth option of me changing my proejects' name and keeping in
separate, but that presents problems for me at this point so I wouldn't be
especially inclined to do that. I suppose I wouldn't rule it completely out,
but it would definitely be last on my list.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
