> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe I should propose *that* for a vote :
> > >
> > > Subject : [VOTE] Geir shuts up about his damn mini-Jakarta model
> >
> > +1 :-)
>
> That's that then.
I doubt it :-)
Geir, I agree with you - but this debate takes too much time and we are
moving in circles. No rule is cast in stone - commiters can make different
decisions regarding the project organization later, after we have more
data and we know how it works.
> > Geir, I'm sure your DBCP will be ok in both models, and the result will be
> > as "productised" as you want it to be. After all any component can become
> > a real jakarta project ( like Ant did ) - and we can't usurp the right to
> > create projects ( even "mini-projects" ) from the PMC.
>
> Huh? It's not that far off from the [supposed] charter of Avalon to be
> a place for components for server development, and there is no notion of
> usurpation there.
It's a bit debatable - if the goals are as generic as "develop components
for server" - i.e. a bit more generic than the goals of jakarta itself,
and if the project commiters can vote on any component that will be
included - than why do we need a PMC to vote on adding a new codebase ?
Costin
