On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 23:32 +0100, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > I'd like to note my opposition. I don't have the same vision as you do > and do not wish to be distracted by 100 irrelavant emails a day about > Commons ABCD. > > I'm glad Henri posted that "reorganization" things were being discussed. > I would have preferred that he posted a more detailed message as I > think others would likely be opposed to such forms of social > engineering. Things evolve the way the evolve for a reason. That POI > has relatively little to do with Commons-DB is not really a good reason > to force us to listen to noise/interference. In radio, you tend to try > and pick bands that aren't real close together so that you don't overlap > and trample on each other's bandwidth. I had to do this with my > wireless network because my neighbor's stuff kept interferring. No I > don't think it would be great if we both shared channel 6 and I don't > feel like vetting some non-technical irrelevant change by someone who > wanted to get their API used by more projects (nevermind that it > performs half as well as the JDK implementation and sucks down 100 other > dependencies). And I bet [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be > REALLY popular...so popular that ALL questions about POI would go to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with CC to every email address I've ever had and > appologies for not posting on the list but half the time you can't > unsubscribe and I really don't want 10000 emails a day about stuff I'm > not using.
you've just an excellent argument for moving poi to top level :) like it or not, it's the jakarta pmc which has the binding votes. henri's proposal only formalises and organises the actual current state of affairs. if you don't trust my judgement enough to allow me a veto on poi commits then you need to talk to the other poi committers about graduating poi to top level status. > If projects share obvious common technical ties then it makes sense, > otherwise lets let darwin decide rather than radical social engineering. > > The PMC should ASK the individual projects if they would like to share a > common list and set of committers rather than a top down decision > proposed on a list that most committers don't subscribe to (which might > indicate...duh...that they don't want to be on a list mostly not about > their project). This proposal and any that resemble it are non-starters > for me. > > A lot of this sounds like Commons trying to remake Jakarta in its image. > As an alternative why can't commons be top level? The namespace is > now free (http://commons.apache.org/). hmmm... commons, taglibs, http components and whatnot going to commons.apache.org that'd only leaves POI in jakarta: does that really make more sense than apache poi? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
