On 5/21/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2/ It seems that we have a consensus forming around the idea that it would be worthwhile retaining some resources in a low-maintenance way. However its not clear where the ownership of these would lie.
Like anything else ASF, the "ownership" will lie with the volunteers who actually do the work. JAKARTA AS A PORTAL If someone wants to turn Jakarta into a Java portal, then turn Jakarta into a Java portal. Some of the codebases may still be under the Jakarta PMC umbrella, but would have little effect on using the Jakarta site as a portal to the ASF's Java assets. To a great extent, it already *is* a portal. The only real difference would be to carry "news" from any ASF Java product, and to list all the Java products, not just Jakarta and ex-Jakarta. (We should also keep in mind that we have at least three multi-language projects with a Java product: iBATIS, Logging, and Lucene.) Anyone interested in such a thing can start now. There's no need for a vote. Changes to ASF websites have always been commit-then-review. So, commit. :) INACTIVE CODEBASES As to inactive projects or Jakarta subprojects, we had that discussion on the members list. Tthe general consensus was to "let sleeping dogs lie". If a project is inactive, the most we should do is post a note to that effect on the website. If someone wants to reactive a project later, then one or more interested people can apply to the incubator. REMAINING JAKARTA SUBPROJECTS The rest of the Jakarta subprojects can either hang around for a few more years, or we could force the TLP issue with a deadline, and then tag the stragglers as "inactive, in search of a community". It doesn't matter much either way. We all see the handwriting on the wall. COMMONS TLP As for the Jakarta Commons TLP proposal, essentially, that vote passed. The people who made the proposal could submit it at the next board meeting as it stands, with a mention that there was some amicable discussion on the vote thread. As Torsten mentioned, the volunteers making the proposal might decide to use a more qualified name than "Apache Commons", so as to resolve the discussion points. Worse case, the Commons group could always go with "Apache Jakarta Commons". No one has objected to the re-use of the word "Jakarta", and more than one person has affirmed that it could be used. Then one day, we could also have an Apache Ruby Commons, and/or an Apache DotNet Commons, and maybe even an Apache XML Commons and Apache WebServers Commons. The codebase could stay under the Jakarta host for now, or more under the Apache Commons host. It doesn't much matter. Implementation details are up to the people doing the work (meaning, the proposed Jakarta Commons PMC and Infrastructure). -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
