On Wed, 04 Feb 2004, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "too broad" is difficult for me to assess.
I vaguely recall board members raising concerns about too broad project goals in the contexts with proposed resolutions for Maven. More or less recursive definitions have worked for Ant (the Ant PMC is tasked with developing Ant, basically) but has raised concerns for Cocoon and Maven IIRC. We probably know what we want Gump to do, we may have different ideas on where we want to go in the future, but the big picture is clear. I don't think that the words we put into the resolution would make any difference. It's just that board resolutions tend to be in that pseudo-legalese that make you chew each word and test its taste. Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> and if this collides with the goals of the Maven project. > > probably. Is that bad? Maven 'collides' with some of the ant project > goals, doesn't it? Is that bad? Depends on who you ask. I'd want to avoid unnecessary friction. > I dislike the term "collides" tho'. Sounds negative. There's > overlap. This is because it's a straight translation from my thoughts. Goals can't overlap in German, they can match exactly or collide. 8-) Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
