On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 15:29 -0500, Henri Yandell wrote: > Board report done - now I can irritate you all on these threads again :) > > On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, robert burrell donkin wrote:
<snip> > >> - each component provides an extension to the JavaSE > >> - code judged by would it be out of place in the JavaSE > > > > probably the wrong test: some of the stuff that's included is pretty > > controversial and grows in scope all the time. i'm not sure that this is > > really what a lot of the extra rubbish is wanted: eg logging, crypto, > > sql, corba, swing. > > > > isn't it only really the lang, util, io and beans packages that are > > really of interest? > > +1. 'core of JavaSE' ? better :) nice'n'fuzzy > >> - have mailing lists (language-user/language-dev) > > > > is there any need for a another user list? > > Also, why cause users pain while we experiment. How about we do the -dev > list, and see how the -user list goes? > > > given smaller mail volumes and the nature of the audience for these > > components (java developers), i think it would be better to retain a > > common user list but encourage posting by users to the dev list. > > > > the commons was more active when there was no user lists. i'd like to > > propose we try that again for this new grouping. if a user list proves > > necessary then it can easily be added later. > > Ah. I thought you were suggesting that they would continue to use > commons-user. :) both at once, really :) any users who want to can use the commons-user list but not having a user list will encourage more people to subscribe to dev. which is a good thing. > I'm +1 to commons-user. I'm only +1 to not havin a user list if we get the > commits/wiki/jira out of the user's face. that'd be easy. might be better for oversight to have these posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] anyway. > >> - not have a sandbox > > > > does that mean: use the jakarta sandbox if every needed? > > Pretty sure it does. > > >> - use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ML (new) for cross group issues > > > > general would feel better (to me) for discussing cross group issues but > > maybe dev might be needed for votes later... > > Yep. Re-word as: > > - use Jakarta wide lists for cross group issues. > > We can modify what those are if we think that general@ is overwhelmed by > Jakarta and we'd like it to be more pan-Apache Java or general-interest. +1 start here with the probably that we'll move later - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
