> Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> > 1) Costin, Ignacio, etc. are concerned that the
> > Commons committers will incorrectly shoot down
> > legitimate components.
>
> I don't believe Costin and Ignacio are actually
interested in
> proposing
> components to the Commons. Costin wants to use the
shared CVS to host
> another model for sharing code -- "Agora". As I
understand it, the
> release process here would not be controlled by the
actual committers,
> but by the subprojects using the components.
>
> Most of us were not interested in pursuing that
model, but wanted to
> give Costin a chance to explore it further.
>
> We originally used the phrase "sponsored by another
subproject" to
> ensure that Agora would have use of the shared CVS.
Where it
> breaks down
> now is how the code developed in the shared CVS gets
> distributed. We're
> concerned that unless we are more specific, it could
become a backdoor
> to distributing code under the Apache brand. I'm
sure Costin would do
> the right thing, but the CVS would be open to all 90
Jakarta
> committers,
> so we need to more careful.
>
> -Ted.
>
Yeah, you're right, I think I misjudged Costin's
concerns. The more discussion we have, the more I'm
convinced that Agora has to be another project.
Commons has very specific standards for documentation,
dependencies, etc., and I don't see how we can
guarantee those in the Agora framework. Consider: to
a Turbine developer, "implement Turbine" is a
perfectly legitimate dependency, but that's not what
this project is trying to do. I don't see us making
the kind of long-term progress we're shooting for,
unless we insure that our components comply with the
charter.
So, I am +1 for the current charter, plus the
additional sentence:
The sponsoring subproject will distribute
the code or documentation along with the
rest of their codebase.
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
Britannica.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
