Will Glass-Husain wrote:
> Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from
> POI.  See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI
> participation.  (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had
> been lacking).   The discussion was civil up until recently.
> I am wondering about this vote though.  Why now?  and what's the
> significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging?  To me it seems the
> flattening of svn is of little significance.  After a year with the
> new structure, I see individual cases where committers have
> cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a
> big impact for many subprojects.

It's the special position I have problems with.

> So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote?  Is there a
> pressing need to get access to POI svn?  Are there patches being
> submitted but not going in?  Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta,
> make it more definable?  Or is there something going on with POI that
> we should discuss publically?

See my reply to Andy for this. (if you cannot find it i'll try to find a link).

> There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of
> POI and Jakarta.  Maybe we should have that discussion instead of
> voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue.

That is what I planned after this vote, based on the result. This vote gives a 
nice view on the fact
 if they even want to be part of Jakarta. Andy doesn't looking at his reply of 
going TLP, Incubator
(?) or moving out of Apache. The part that sparked this vote, is the releases 
that were made (not
blaming Nick here, I think he is definitely an asset to Jakarta!) and it was 
made very clearly that
POI needs mentoring from other Jakarta people, which cannot happen if they want 
to keep the gates
closed. Opening the gates is a first step in the right direction.

Hope that answers your question / concerns.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to