That's quite problematic : Jakarta is responsible for jakarta.apache.org, not commons, sharing that responsibility will just complicate things a lot.
It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a flattened) commons become Jakarta.. Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: > What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of > reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the > project name "Apache Jakarta Commons" still be a problem for you if > the physical infrastructure remained "here", under the Jakarta > hostname? > > -Ted. > > On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, >> should just stay here >> till they >> are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project. >> >> Mvgr, >> Martin >> >> Ted Husted wrote: >> > On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean >> >> no one has >> >> expressed objections (you even responded to those objections) >> > >> > Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say >> > that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do >> > you still feel that way? >> > >> > -Ted. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
