Berin Lautenbach wrote:
<snip>
You'll have to pardon me here - what were the exact issues you had with the charter? I think there was a piece around top level code base?
Very simply: the draft charter defined Xerces sub-projects as parser implementations in different languages. And it had no allowance for sub-projects for a particular parser impl.
I don't see any problem with have a PMC that deals with all Xerces implementations but still considering the different implementations "projects" with their own sub-projects. For example, Xerces-J could have an HTML sub-project with the HTML DOM implementation and an HTML parser built from the Xerces framework. But the draft charter was explicit about defining a sub-project as an XML parser implementation in a particular language.
IMHO sub-projects are at the root of most of the difficulties over in jakarta-land.
it's much better to have a single community (corresponding to a sub-project) with several products (for example the different parser implementations) than many sub-projects. there might be parts of each community that focus most on different products but sharing the same infrastructure help ideas to be exchanged and potential problems picked up early. (jakarta commons has a score or more of products but the single community model has helped to make it a real success.)
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
