On 12/17/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Avik Sengupta wrote:
> I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the > comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I > think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I > dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project Subsuming is not something I see happening, we already have enough sub sub projects. The total projects in Jakarta is currently at 109 (only sub projects and projects without sub projects are counted).
My previous pro for POI as a TLP is that it would give the POI community more independence and would allow Jakarta to move in the direction of having an identity rather than being the "what's left". I know I come across strongly as thinking that identity is commons-like, but I'll welcome any workable solution. The other option I could think of is for Jakarta to be a Java federation (as per XML), but I don't get the feeling that the federation ideas have had much success. I'd love to hear other ideas. [Short aside: Federation idea is for Jakarta to be a place where Java projects come together - basically the old Jakarta with each subproject being a TLP and yet still part of the same community. I think it's 4 years too late to try that :( ] My current con for POI as a TLP is that I think we shouldn't be going "the release was wrong, send them TLP"; we should be ensuring that things are good (source headers, releases, voting, all that junk^Wjazz) first as that's the Jakarta PMC's responsibility. A previous con I had was that it seemed to be going inactive, but activity seems to be happily up. So.. I think we need to: 1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the files etc. 2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so. Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy. 3) Work on a TLP proposal. ----- On subproject subsuming. My basic premise is that a Jakarta subproject can only be healthy within Jakarta currently if it is also viable as a TLP (where healthy => fits into the current ASF structure). An umbrella without large internal overlap is too weak unless we create our own internal sub-PMC system and reporting structure and that's one of the things that lead to splitting Jakarta up in the first place (as far as I recall). I'd personally much rather see POI as an active TLP than being squashed into a flattened umbrella, but I definitely don't want to see it being stuck in the old subproject structure. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
