On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > "Point of distribution" ? I suppose the project(s) that vote to release a
> > component will be the point of distribution.
>
> Then we're fine. The underlying concern was that the shared CVS could
> become a backdoor where code might be released under the Apache brand
> without the usual peer review by a subproject. (While I know * you *
> would never do this, we have to write this for everyone.)
Ted, if this is the concern than the rule that "jakarta projects that have
the component as part of their release" is much more powerfull and
provides more peer review than the rule that "commons will vote on each
component release".
Read my previous mail - I would be more concerned about "commons" voting
on component they don't know and are developed by small subgroups than on
jakarat projects voting on component they use and have to support ( and
maybe share with other jakarta projects).
Costin
>
> > And of course, the current proposal that was voted include the option for
> > jakarta projects to sponsor sub-components - and I don't think you can
> > change that without invalidating the original vote.
>
> We've simply been been asked to clarify "sponsor", just as we have
> clarified some other points.
>
> I think we may now be down to
>
> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> rest of their codebase."
>
> Does that seem OK?
>
> -Ted.
>
