Just something to consider: Is the project going to have sufficient members to sustain it as a TLP long-term?
At present there seem to be just about enough members, but if one or two drop out then there would not be sufficient to run the TLP - though it might still be viable as part of another TLP. I'm not saying don't do it, just be aware of the additional requirements that being a TLP involves. +0 from me. Sebastian On 23/05/07, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm +1 to HttpComponents being a TLP. On 5/23/07, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > I can't help feeling that being a part of Jakarta has become a liability > for the project given the latest discussions on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I > simply could not care less if Commons becomes Jakarta then becomes > Commons or Jakarta becomes Commons then becomes Jakarta or some other > twisted combination of the two. > > I am afraid our hand has been forced. We have no other option but > seriously consider moving elsewhere. If no one speaks against it, I > would like to put together a draft TLP resolution and ask existing ASF > committers if anyone would be interested in being on HttpComponents PMC > and overseeing the project. If we got at least 6 to 8 volunteers we > could go ahead with the TLP proposal. If not, we could still consider > asking Web Services TLP to accept us as a subproject overseen by Web > Services PMC or merge back into Commons > > Oleg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- dIon Gillard Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
