Sorry. No. Not on this list.
(1) Go to http://tomcat.apache.com look for their email list and ask
your question on that list.
(2) Please learn to be much more polite, as you have been very rude
in your earlier "replies."
(3) Questions belong in a new email message and not in a reply.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Dave
On May 10, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Jean Carlo Salas wrote:
did you why Apache Tomcat dosn't run in Vista??
On 5/10/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/10/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> > [ ] +0 I don't care
> > [x] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>
> I do not feel the draft resolution adequately addresses several
> remarks made in the discussion thread.
I'm in agreement with Niall. I think both of the quotes below are
mine, so I'll respond to those.
>
> The resolution should address issues raised as to the scope of
the PMC
> and the use of the commons namespace. Comments on the other thread
> included remarks like
>
> * "We'll do whatever the community wants to do. If someone
proposes a
> Ruby library and we have a community interested in creating and
> supporting a Ruby library, then it would of course be strongly
> considered. "
Yep, I stand by this one. Look at Jakarta's resolution and what
Jakarta does now - it's clear that the community overrules the
resolution and I expect it's up to the board to complain if they feel
it's gone too far.
>
> and
>
> * "Multiple PMCs, one website. So we'd have Java Commons, Ruby
> Commons, BobsYourUncle Commons PMCs, and they'd all share a
> commons.apache.org website."
This one was definitely a random suggestion. If we reach a point of
impasse with another commons wanting to start, then I (with board hat
on) think the solution would be to have multiple PMCs and 1 website.
Or maybe that really means a portal and a site behind it. All
hypothetical though - XML Commons is dead, DB Commons never happened
and WS Commons is afaik not highly active. We do own the Commons
space
currently.
> But, as it stands, the resolution implies that the proposed PMC
will
> be excluded to Java and would own both the top-level "Commons"
project
> name and the "commons.apache.org" namespace. Neither remark is
> addressed.
Yep. Personally I think that we don't need Java there. For two
reasons:
1) It's community and day to day life that determines our scope, more
so than a resoltion.
2) It's (let's face it) an easier sell without Java in the text.
However the consensus was very clearly in favour of having Java in
the
resolution.
<snip>
> Let the focus of this PMC remain on Java, but, in the Apache
spirit of
> openness and collaboration, make way for other Apache Commons
projects
> in other languages.
Sure - but let's discuss that then rather than now. Hypotheticals
will
just keep us spinning emails out ad infinitum.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Enjoy your day!!
http://jeank.awardspace.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
