On 27.10.2007, at 22:07, Roland Weber wrote:
Hi folks,
against all odds, I've found a few minutes to draft a TLP proposal
based on the consensus we reached during the discussion. I put it
in the Jakarta Wiki, to keep [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the loop:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPHttpComponents
Nice, some notes:
1st paragraph is missing the reference to open-source software, e.g.
make it:
"...charged with the creation and maintenance of *open-source
software* related to a toolset of low level Java components focused
on HTTP and *associated* protocols..."
3rd paragraph should define the responsibility and shouldn't repeat
"in charge", e.g. make it:
"...and hereby *is responsible* for the creation and maintenance of
software related to a toolset of..."
I'm not so sure about the 4th parapgraph: the first part is implicit
anyway (adoption), the second part is fine but sounds a bit strange -
dunno, I guess the board will have questions here, but it probably
isn't a show-stopper, so best is to leave it as it is and wait on
feedback...
8th paragraph:
"...of the Apache Jakarta HttpComponents Project's components..."
should be
"...of the Apache Jakarta HttpComponents subproject..."
10th paragraph should mention both artifacts of the two prior
paragrahps, e.g. make it:
"...that all responsibilities pertaining to the Jakarta
HttpComponents and Jakarta Commons HttpClient subprojects encumbered
upon the Apache Jakarta Project..."
Also, most of the previous proposals (not all!) had the following
paragraph:
"RESOLVED, that the initial Apache HttpComponents Project be and
hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to
encourage open development and increased participation in the
Apache HttpComponents Project; and be it further"
Not really sure if we should add this too but since we'll need some
basic bylaws anyway, it can't really hurt.
...
The phrasing is terrible.
I don't think so, it isn't that bad.
Is that style of endless worm sentences
actually mandatory, or is it just a convention nobody every cared
to contest?
Well, it's legal language and that's the way it used to be so let's
just live with it and don't worry...
...
In the scope description, I've dropped the "transport aspects"
qualifier. That was mainly an editorial decision, since I couldn't
find a way to disambiguate the phrase without creating an even
worse word snake...
+1, no worries here.
Please let me know what you think, and/or edit the wiki directly.
See above, I've sent the changes/additions here first for potential
discussion - happy to incorporate them if we agree.
I suggest to wait with putting in our names until the proposal
itself has been reviewed.
Aye, makes sense.
Cheers,
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
