On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline.
Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month, and i gave the vote a full week! Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction.
Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity.
If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and decisions.
But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
geir Nathan Bubna wrote: > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... > > +1 votes: > Nathan Bubna > Martin van den Bemt > James Mitchell > Henri Yandell > Jorg Schaible > Henning P. Schmiedehausen > Will Glass-Husain > Torsten Curdt > Rony G. Flatscher > Jesse Kuhnert > Dion Gillard > Daniel Rall > Matthijs Lambooy > Niall Pemberton > Claude Brisson > Malcolm Edgar > Christoph Reck > > +0 votes: > -none- > > -1 votes: > -none- > > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of > those votes are binding. :) > > thanks, everyone! > > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the >> board. So... >> >> The proposal is available for your perusal at: >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity >> >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following >> thread: >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2 >> >> And the vote happens here: >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal >> [ ] +0 I don't care >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... >> >> Thanks! >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
