Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Henri Yandell wrote: So the question is; is the above direction worth discussing, Not sure about moving to incubator part -- but overall -- yes, IMHO it is worth discussing. Vadim or should we just go with the Commons TLP. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
> > To those trying to preserve Jakarta I say 'let go of Commons'. Don't abuse > Commons to try and save Jakarta. If the Jakarta name is worth saving, people > and community will form to save it. If not, then it will die. Thats normal > and natural. > Maybe not a reference to me, but in case it is, a reaction is probably needed. I am not abusing commons to save Jakarta. I just don't want commons to claim the Jakarta name when it leaves, since that would be abusing the other projects still present at Jakarta. That's what my notes are about : if the commons goal is to become Jakarta, you shouldn't leave. (not saying that this is what you wanted, just my observation from the threads going on) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
> > Added themselves to the TLP Proposal but didn't vote(?) > > 1. Jochen Wiedmann > 2. Martin van den Bemt(*) > 3. Matt Benson > 4. Rory Winston(*) > 5. Joerg Pietschmann > I voted +1, unless the goal is that commons becomes Jakarta in the end.. (then I want commons to stay) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/23/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/23/07, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think there's another issue here. > > Many of those who voted +1, aren't on the initial list of committers > in the proposal. > > Also, many current commons committers aren't on the proposed list. Yup thats disappointing. > It seems that we're not voting on that specific proposal, rather just > the idea to move, and that a lot of people are being disenfranchised > by not being listed. Its down to people to add themselves to the TLP resolution (they were invited to do so) - if people are disenfranchised then its their own choice. In teasing apart these two questions: (1) Whether a community member plans to continue to be involved with the Commons community (regardless of where the code resides -- this TLP or a new one) (2) Whether a community member supports the TLP proposal Its possible to answer 'yes' to (1) but oppose / be undecided / abstain on (2). For example, see Simon's post in this thread, I think he raises a similar point. I'm in that boat as well. > Wouldn't it be better if the initial list came from the svn acl? Would seem wrong to put people on the list without their consent. Agreed. -Rahul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/23/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If that, or something like it, sounds like a good consensus plan, then I'm definitely more in favour of that than Commons going to TLP. There are really only four steps: Step 0: Consensus. Step 1: Move 3 projects to the Incubator. Step 2: Move other projects into Commons. Step 3: Re-establish Jakarta PMC - we'd use pretty much the same resolution we just voted on here. So the question is; is the above direction worth discussing, or should we just go with the Commons TLP. I think it is. From the Commons TLP discussion so far, a couple of things stand out for me: * Whether Commons fits the bill (assuming the bill is tending towards a TLP for a "product") -- lets punt on that (since the board won't have that privilege). * If we're going to invite half (or more) of the remainder of Jakarta to join the Commons TLP, perhaps we can do that exercise here, and aim towards step 3. I do understand that some of us are wearing thin on patience and that this would be a detour. -Rahul Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
