Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
FWIW, I'd like to change my vote to +1. The existence of a Apache Commons project devoted to Java doesn't automatically preclude the future existence of an Apache Ruby Commons or Apache .NET Commons. After all, the project names are only labels. Should another application for a TLP Commons be made, my hope would be that our Java commons would be predisposed to sharing the host name with our fellow volunteers, should such a request be made. -Ted. 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. 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. 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. 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. If we are open to a TLP Ruby Commons or DotNet Commons, then we should reflect that openness in the resolution and in the project name. We can't use Java (been there, Sun complained). But we can preserve the Jakarta name, and leave the door open for an top-level Apache XML Commons or a top-level Apache C# Commons. So why not the Apache Jakarta Commons Project? Or, if we intend that this PMC provide oversight for components in other languages later, then we should strike the word Java from the resolution now, and clarify our intent. Time is not of the essence, and I believe we should define the scope of the PMC and the commons.apache.org host name and namespace now, rather than create FUD later. It took five hundred email messages to create the commons in the first place, and we can spare a few more to get the TLP resolution right. My suggestion is to * amend the Project name to Apache Jakarta Commons PMC. and setup shop as commons.apache.org/jakarta 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. -Ted. -- HTH, Ted http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/ - 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: Committ access and being a PMC memeber are 2 different things - its been mooted that we should carry over the current Jakarta commit list for Commons (which I'm in favour of) - but that would be for the PMC to decide if its formed. Retaining someones commit access is a passive thing which is OK - making someone responsibe for a new TLP needs their consent IMO. As to the point of active consent, did each and every individual listed on the proposed resolution either actively consent in an email message on an ASF list, or add their own name to the list? In other words, what was the source of the initial list of PMC members? If there was a thread behind this thread, we should incorporate it by reference. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Ted Husted wrote: As to the point of active consent, did each and every individual listed on the proposed resolution either actively consent in an email message on an ASF list, or add their own name to the list? Based on the Wiki history... http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution?action=info Rory Winston - was added by Daniel Savarese Torsten Curdt - was added as chair by Henri Yandell All others added themselves. hope that helps, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roland Weber writes: Rory Winston - was added by Daniel Savarese Torsten Curdt - was added as chair by Henri Yandell Rory voted for the proposal so I saved him the time and redundancy when I added myself after voting for the proposal. I assume Henri did the same for Torsten. daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
IIRC Torsten had already added himself to the proposal, then after emails in which T. indicated his willingness to act as chair, Henri updated the wiki accordingly. -Matt --- Daniel F. Savarese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roland Weber writes: Rory Winston - was added by Daniel Savarese Torsten Curdt - was added as chair by Henri Yandell Rory voted for the proposal so I saved him the time and redundancy when I added myself after voting for the proposal. I assume Henri did the same for Torsten. daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Stephen Colebourne wrote: This seems a little overplanned in my mind ;) Allow a little more evolution. - Commons goes TLP. - Rules for Commons TLP become clear (one mailing list, one PMC, anyone commits in any component, anyone votes/reviews any release, comfortable social group) - Then invite communities from Jakarta to join if they wish (once the rules and expectations are clear) Simple. And community-up not top-down. +1 Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Folks, I am on holidays and offline for two weeks, so if anything is decided inbetween, the statement below is my official position. Cheers, Jörg Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Henri, Henri Yandell wrote on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:00 AM: [snip] 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 voted +1 for commons TLP, but only since it seems the only solution for a way out of this situation. If there is a possibility that in the end Jakarta ends up as an enhanced commons, I'd prefer this. - Jörg - 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: snip-plan/ 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. snap/ 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]
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. snip/ 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. snap/ Agreed. -Rahul - 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
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: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Hi Henri, Henri Yandell wrote on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:00 AM: [snip] 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 voted +1 for commons TLP, but only since it seems the only solution for a way out of this situation. If there is a possibility that in the end Jakarta ends up as an enhanced commons, I'd prefer this. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
[ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [X] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Sorry for the late vote. I'm opposed to the resolution as I see no benefit for Commons, and I believe the Jakarta brand must be preserved. I would support a resolution aiming at restructuring Jakarta, by moving up the Commons Components by example. Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
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. 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. Wouldn't it be better if the initial list came from the svn acl? On 5/23/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? Votes +1 (* indicates binding) 1. Henri Yandell(*) 2. Dennis Lundberg(*) 3. Mladen Turk(*) 4. Torsten Curdt(*) 5. Oliver Heger(*) 6. Robert Burrell Donkin(*) 7. Stephen Colebourne(*) 8. Daniel F. Savarese(*) 9. Martin Cooper(*) 10. Mark Thomas(*) 11. Niall Pemberton(*) 12. Stefan Bodewig(*) 13. Phil Steitz(*) 14. Jörg Schaible(*) 15. Jean-Frederic(*) 16. Henning Schmiedehausen(*) (conditional on The TLP proposal matching the template) 17. Nick Burch 18. Davanum Srinivas(*) 19. Thomas Vandahl 20. Oliver Zeigermann(*) 21. Rony G. Flatscher(*) 22. Scott Eade(*) 23. Yegor Kozlov 24. Luc Maisonobe 25. Mario Ivankovits(*) 26. Roland Weber(*) 27. Andrew Oliver(*) (think this was a vote for, voted -1 to Commons=Jakarta) 28. Jesse Kuhnert 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 Objections / Votes -1 = 1. Petar Tahchiev - sees no direct benfits for Commons 2. Ted Husted(*) - Strike Java from resolution or don't hijack Commons Name 3. Simon Kitching(*) - Will erect walls we took down - like Ted doesn't want java to monopolise commons name 4. Danny Angus(*) - preserve the Jakarta brand - Wants Jkarata==Jakarta Commons - thinks Commons should sort out Jakarta problems Bile Nonsense === Jean Carlo Salas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- dIon Gillard Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 19:14 +1000, Dion Gillard 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. 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. Wouldn't it be better if the initial list came from the svn acl? Dion, Just speaking for myself I intentionally did not want to add my name to the list of committers to show my disapproval of the proposal, but at the same I did not feel my involvement in the rest of Commons besides maintenance of HttpClient 3.x codeline was significant enough to justify a -1 vote. Oleg On 5/23/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? Votes +1 (* indicates binding) 1. Henri Yandell(*) 2. Dennis Lundberg(*) 3. Mladen Turk(*) 4. Torsten Curdt(*) 5. Oliver Heger(*) 6. Robert Burrell Donkin(*) 7. Stephen Colebourne(*) 8. Daniel F. Savarese(*) 9. Martin Cooper(*) 10. Mark Thomas(*) 11. Niall Pemberton(*) 12. Stefan Bodewig(*) 13. Phil Steitz(*) 14. Jörg Schaible(*) 15. Jean-Frederic(*) 16. Henning Schmiedehausen(*) (conditional on The TLP proposal matching the template) 17. Nick Burch 18. Davanum Srinivas(*) 19. Thomas Vandahl 20. Oliver Zeigermann(*) 21. Rony G. Flatscher(*) 22. Scott Eade(*) 23. Yegor Kozlov 24. Luc Maisonobe 25. Mario Ivankovits(*) 26. Roland Weber(*) 27. Andrew Oliver(*) (think this was a vote for, voted -1 to Commons=Jakarta) 28. Jesse Kuhnert 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 Objections / Votes -1 = 1. Petar Tahchiev - sees no direct benfits for Commons 2. Ted Husted(*) - Strike Java from resolution or don't hijack Commons Name 3. Simon Kitching(*) - Will erect walls we took down - like Ted doesn't want java to monopolise commons name 4. Danny Angus(*) - preserve the Jakarta brand - Wants Jkarata==Jakarta Commons - thinks Commons should sort out Jakarta problems Bile Nonsense === Jean Carlo Salas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
This seems a little overplanned in my mind ;) Allow a little more evolution. - Commons goes TLP. - Rules for Commons TLP become clear (one mailing list, one PMC, anyone commits in any component, anyone votes/reviews any release, comfortable social group) - Then invite communities from Jakarta to join if they wish (once the rules and expectations are clear) Simple. And community-up not top-down. Stephen - Original Message From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List general@jakarta.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, 23 May, 2007 6:00:05 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP On 5/22/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? I think you just did :) Definitely a consensus in favour of the resolution. The negative opinions in the thread then started moving in the direction of other ideas. My preference is for a single-community Jakarta, I think the time has come to finish the job - however if that looks like it's never going to come then I think the best thing is for Commons to go TLP. Here's what I think could happen: If willing, ECS, ORO, Regexp moving into Commons. Probably move ECS into maintenance immediatley but that's a different story. Both dev and user mailing lists to merge in. I think JCS, BCEL and BSF should also all move into Commons if willing; with the intention of moving them to TLP if they grow. I think BSF is a good TLP on paper, but some more time 'incubating' will be valuable and that'll be better in the relatively small move to Jakarta-Commons. Dev lists should merge in, user lists could stay outside I think (assuming some level of activity currently). Taglibs is currently discussing a good chunk of internal clean-up. We'll retire most of the taglibs and focus on three. Much like BSF, I think the future for Taglibs could easily be folding into Commons or going TLP if it more activity. Again, fold dev into commons, keep user separate. The devs there already have high overlap with Commons. --- up til this point was the easy bit :) Http Components is much the same as Taglibs/BSF, but less overlap and less interested in returning to Commons. I think it would do well to follow the same course (merge dev list, different user list, keeping an eye on TLP in the future if growth). * Slide. There's some sign of activity here. Not enough yet. * Cactus. Tiny bit of activity, again not enough for a TLP. * JMeter. Lots of commits from Sebb, but not a big community. For all three of these the best solution I can think of is to move them to the Incubator. Keep the lists where they are, move the svn, move the websites. They need to be thinking TLP, they need to get community. -- 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. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 23/05/07, Scott Eade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: * Slide. There's some sign of activity here. Not enough yet. * Cactus. Tiny bit of activity, again not enough for a TLP. * JMeter. Lots of commits from Sebb, but not a big community. We have invited another person to become a committer, but so far he has not accepted. I need to chase that up. For all three of these the best solution I can think of is to move them to the Incubator. Keep the lists where they are, move the svn, move the websites. They need to be thinking TLP, they need to get community. I think the people that work on and use these projects would feel somewhat marginalized if they were pushed over to Incubator. I feel abandoned by Jakarta. Do all the Commons sub-projects have sufficient numbers ot committers to justify them remaining in Commons? For example CLI has not even had a formal release yet and has been far less active than JMeter, but is still protected by being in Commons. How about we have four categories in Jakarta Commons becomes Jakarta: * proper * sandbox * dormant * jakarta-holdouts (replace this with a better name of your choosing) The last one being a home for these projects until they can find a home elsewhere (tlp or otherwise). Would it be correct to say that one of the reasons for a commons to go tlp was that a more focused PMC is required going forward? This would still be possible with a few holdouts in the mix. Scott (crawls back under rock) Sebastian Another rock fell on my foot ... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
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. 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. Niall On 5/23/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? Votes +1 (* indicates binding) 1. Henri Yandell(*) 2. Dennis Lundberg(*) 3. Mladen Turk(*) 4. Torsten Curdt(*) 5. Oliver Heger(*) 6. Robert Burrell Donkin(*) 7. Stephen Colebourne(*) 8. Daniel F. Savarese(*) 9. Martin Cooper(*) 10. Mark Thomas(*) 11. Niall Pemberton(*) 12. Stefan Bodewig(*) 13. Phil Steitz(*) 14. Jörg Schaible(*) 15. Jean-Frederic(*) 16. Henning Schmiedehausen(*) (conditional on The TLP proposal matching the template) 17. Nick Burch 18. Davanum Srinivas(*) 19. Thomas Vandahl 20. Oliver Zeigermann(*) 21. Rony G. Flatscher(*) 22. Scott Eade(*) 23. Yegor Kozlov 24. Luc Maisonobe 25. Mario Ivankovits(*) 26. Roland Weber(*) 27. Andrew Oliver(*) (think this was a vote for, voted -1 to Commons=Jakarta) 28. Jesse Kuhnert 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 Objections / Votes -1 = 1. Petar Tahchiev - sees no direct benfits for Commons 2. Ted Husted(*) - Strike Java from resolution or don't hijack Commons Name 3. Simon Kitching(*) - Will erect walls we took down - like Ted doesn't want java to monopolise commons name 4. Danny Angus(*) - preserve the Jakarta brand - Wants Jkarata==Jakarta Commons - thinks Commons should sort out Jakarta problems Bile Nonsense === Jean Carlo Salas - 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. Maybe not all of them follow general@ - I'm crossposting. 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. I don't know about that. It seems that a discussion and proposal taking place on a different list isn't being as inclusive as we should be. 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. It would also seem wrong to 'remove' someone's commit access to the code by moving it to a TLP without at least keeping the dev list informed. Niall On 5/23/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? Votes +1 (* indicates binding) 1. Henri Yandell(*) 2. Dennis Lundberg(*) 3. Mladen Turk(*) 4. Torsten Curdt(*) 5. Oliver Heger(*) 6. Robert Burrell Donkin(*) 7. Stephen Colebourne(*) 8. Daniel F. Savarese(*) 9. Martin Cooper(*) 10. Mark Thomas(*) 11. Niall Pemberton(*) 12. Stefan Bodewig(*) 13. Phil Steitz(*) 14. Jörg Schaible(*) 15. Jean-Frederic(*) 16. Henning Schmiedehausen(*) (conditional on The TLP proposal matching the template) 17. Nick Burch 18. Davanum Srinivas(*) 19. Thomas Vandahl 20. Oliver Zeigermann(*) 21. Rony G. Flatscher(*) 22. Scott Eade(*) 23. Yegor Kozlov 24. Luc Maisonobe 25. Mario Ivankovits(*) 26. Roland Weber(*) 27. Andrew Oliver(*) (think this was a vote for, voted -1 to Commons=Jakarta) 28. Jesse Kuhnert 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 Objections / Votes -1 = 1. Petar Tahchiev - sees no direct benfits for Commons 2. Ted Husted(*) - Strike Java from resolution or don't hijack Commons Name 3. Simon Kitching(*) - Will erect walls we took down - like Ted doesn't want java to monopolise commons name 4. Danny Angus(*) - preserve the Jakarta brand - Wants Jkarata==Jakarta Commons - thinks Commons should sort out Jakarta problems Bile Nonsense === Jean Carlo Salas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- dIon Gillard Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
- Original Message From: sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do all the Commons sub-projects have sufficient numbers ot committers to justify them remaining in Commons? For example CLI has not even had a formal release yet and has been far less active than JMeter, but is still protected by being in Commons. Commons components are not the equivalent of Jakarta sub-projects. That is a key factor as to why commons can continue to function, when Jakarta has died. The difference is that everyone is responsible for everything in Commons, whereas in Jakarta people only take responsibility for their own area. Now, thats not to say that every Commons developer cares equally about every Commons component, but there is a strong sense of shared responsibility. Anyone can review/support/oppose a commit/idea/release. Thus, your original question re CLI doesn't really apply in the same way. Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/23/07, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Maybe not all of them follow general@ - I'm crossposting. 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. I don't know about that. It seems that a discussion and proposal taking place on a different list isn't being as inclusive as we should be. 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. It would also seem wrong to 'remove' someone's commit access to the code by moving it to a TLP without at least keeping the dev list informed. Committ access and being a PMC memeber are 2 different things - its been mooted that we should carry over the current Jakarta commit list for Commons (which I'm in favour of) - but that would be for the PMC to decide if its formed. Retaining someones commit access is a passive thing which is OK - making someone responsibe for a new TLP needs their consent IMO. Niall Niall On 5/23/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? Votes +1 (* indicates binding) 1. Henri Yandell(*) 2. Dennis Lundberg(*) 3. Mladen Turk(*) 4. Torsten Curdt(*) 5. Oliver Heger(*) 6. Robert Burrell Donkin(*) 7. Stephen Colebourne(*) 8. Daniel F. Savarese(*) 9. Martin Cooper(*) 10. Mark Thomas(*) 11. Niall Pemberton(*) 12. Stefan Bodewig(*) 13. Phil Steitz(*) 14. Jörg Schaible(*) 15. Jean-Frederic(*) 16. Henning Schmiedehausen(*) (conditional on The TLP proposal matching the template) 17. Nick Burch 18. Davanum Srinivas(*) 19. Thomas Vandahl 20. Oliver Zeigermann(*) 21. Rony G. Flatscher(*) 22. Scott Eade(*) 23. Yegor Kozlov 24. Luc Maisonobe 25. Mario Ivankovits(*) 26. Roland Weber(*) 27. Andrew Oliver(*) (think this was a vote for, voted -1 to Commons=Jakarta) 28. Jesse Kuhnert 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 Objections / Votes -1 = 1. Petar Tahchiev - sees no direct benfits for Commons 2. Ted Husted(*) - Strike Java from resolution or don't hijack Commons Name 3. Simon Kitching(*) - Will erect walls we took down - like Ted doesn't want java to monopolise commons name 4. Danny Angus(*) - preserve the Jakarta brand - Wants Jkarata==Jakarta Commons - thinks Commons should sort out Jakarta problems Bile Nonsense === Jean Carlo Salas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- dIon Gillard Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Stephen, I think Sebb does have a valid point. Using CLI as an example, I'm not sure that there is a shared sense of responsibility for it. CLI 1.x has had an issue open against it since 2006-03 with only recent activity on it, and Henri's comment in that issue from 2007-03 (CLI is still pretty much a dead commons component. No one's actively working on it.) is damning evidence. On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do all the Commons sub-projects have sufficient numbers ot committers to justify them remaining in Commons? For example CLI has not even had a formal release yet and has been far less active than JMeter, but is still protected by being in Commons. Commons components are not the equivalent of Jakarta sub-projects. That is a key factor as to why commons can continue to function, when Jakarta has died. The difference is that everyone is responsible for everything in Commons, whereas in Jakarta people only take responsibility for their own area. Now, thats not to say that every Commons developer cares equally about every Commons component, but there is a strong sense of shared responsibility. Anyone can review/support/oppose a commit/idea/release. Thus, your original question re CLI doesn't really apply in the same way. Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- dIon Gillard Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
- Original Message From: Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using CLI as an example, I'm not sure that there is a shared sense of responsibility for it. CLI 1.x has had an issue open against it since 2006-03 with only recent activity on it, and Henri's comment in that issue from 2007-03 (CLI is still pretty much a dead commons component. No one's actively working on it.) is damning evidence. IMO Henri was being a little harsh here, as I don't think we always distinguish between the stability of code and the activity of the community. I do feel, and this is the important point, that if a commons committer chose to work on CLI, and want to release it then they would get support for doing the release (we're not perfect, but we're pretty good at making up the quorum and doing the quality checking). Would it be as easy to get Jakarta PMC members to step up for a JMeter release? Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Dion Gillard wrote: Many of those who voted +1, aren't on the initial list of committers in the proposal. As has been mentioned, it's an initial list of PMC members. But the votes come from all of Jakarta, not just Commons. Some of them are from Commons people voting to get out of here, others are from Jakarta people waving good-bye, and some are from folks that care about both. Wouldn't it be better if the initial list came from the svn acl? Wouldn't that beat the purpose of the move in the first place? I thought this was an attempt to disentangle Commons and Jakarta in order to see what's left of Jakarta afterwards. And the whole discussion about Commons becoming Jakarta is based on the assumption that Jakarta w/o Commons will not survive anyway. just my 0.02€... Roland - 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: * Slide. There's some sign of activity here. Not enough yet. * Cactus. Tiny bit of activity, again not enough for a TLP. * JMeter. Lots of commits from Sebb, but not a big community. For all three of these the best solution I can think of is to move them to the Incubator. Keep the lists where they are, move the svn, move the websites. They need to be thinking TLP, they need to get community. I'm against using the incubator as a rehabilitator. Everything else (including the significant snippage that I did) I agree with. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using CLI as an example, I'm not sure that there is a shared sense of responsibility for it. CLI 1.x has had an issue open against it since 2006-03 with only recent activity on it, and Henri's comment in that issue from 2007-03 (CLI is still pretty much a dead commons component. No one's actively working on it.) is damning evidence. IMO Henri was being a little harsh here, as I don't think we always distinguish between the stability of code and the activity of the community. At the time it was pretty valid I think - there was zero energy available to spend on it. CLI was a good lesson in the dangers of letting a research revolution take over the momentum of a component. Something for us to learn with some of our newer revolution rather than evolution branches. I do feel, and this is the important point, that if a commons committer chose to work on CLI, and want to release it then they would get support for doing the release (we're not perfect, but we're pretty good at making up the quorum and doing the quality checking). In fact they are :) A contributor, Brian Egge, is charging on with the 1.x branch and I've been working with him on that, we've one issue to go. Torsten's also interested in seeing a release get out, so I'd be surprised if we had any problems on a release. I do apologise though to you, Sebb. My 'solutions' are very much a reflection of me being tired with all this and wanting to make things happen sooner rather than in much, much later. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? Votes +1 (* indicates binding) 1. Henri Yandell(*) 2. Dennis Lundberg(*) 3. Mladen Turk(*) 4. Torsten Curdt(*) 5. Oliver Heger(*) 6. Robert Burrell Donkin(*) 7. Stephen Colebourne(*) 8. Daniel F. Savarese(*) 9. Martin Cooper(*) 10. Mark Thomas(*) 11. Niall Pemberton(*) 12. Stefan Bodewig(*) 13. Phil Steitz(*) 14. Jörg Schaible(*) 15. Jean-Frederic(*) 16. Henning Schmiedehausen(*) (conditional on The TLP proposal matching the template) 17. Nick Burch 18. Davanum Srinivas(*) 19. Thomas Vandahl 20. Oliver Zeigermann(*) 21. Rony G. Flatscher(*) 22. Scott Eade(*) 23. Yegor Kozlov 24. Luc Maisonobe 25. Mario Ivankovits(*) 26. Roland Weber(*) 27. Andrew Oliver(*) (think this was a vote for, voted -1 to Commons=Jakarta) 28. Jesse Kuhnert 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 Objections / Votes -1 = 1. Petar Tahchiev - sees no direct benfits for Commons 2. Ted Husted(*) - Strike Java from resolution or don't hijack Commons Name 3. Simon Kitching(*) - Will erect walls we took down - like Ted doesn't want java to monopolise commons name 4. Danny Angus(*) - preserve the Jakarta brand - Wants Jkarata==Jakarta Commons - thinks Commons should sort out Jakarta problems Bile Nonsense === Jean Carlo Salas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/22/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick summary of this thread 28 Votes for (23 binding), 4 against (3 binding). Seems to me that those objecting don't seem to have pursuaded people to change their vote. At what point do we decide on a result? I think you just did :) Definitely a consensus in favour of the resolution. The negative opinions in the thread then started moving in the direction of other ideas. My preference is for a single-community Jakarta, I think the time has come to finish the job - however if that looks like it's never going to come then I think the best thing is for Commons to go TLP. Here's what I think could happen: If willing, ECS, ORO, Regexp moving into Commons. Probably move ECS into maintenance immediatley but that's a different story. Both dev and user mailing lists to merge in. I think JCS, BCEL and BSF should also all move into Commons if willing; with the intention of moving them to TLP if they grow. I think BSF is a good TLP on paper, but some more time 'incubating' will be valuable and that'll be better in the relatively small move to Jakarta-Commons. Dev lists should merge in, user lists could stay outside I think (assuming some level of activity currently). Taglibs is currently discussing a good chunk of internal clean-up. We'll retire most of the taglibs and focus on three. Much like BSF, I think the future for Taglibs could easily be folding into Commons or going TLP if it more activity. Again, fold dev into commons, keep user separate. The devs there already have high overlap with Commons. --- up til this point was the easy bit :) Http Components is much the same as Taglibs/BSF, but less overlap and less interested in returning to Commons. I think it would do well to follow the same course (merge dev list, different user list, keeping an eye on TLP in the future if growth). * Slide. There's some sign of activity here. Not enough yet. * Cactus. Tiny bit of activity, again not enough for a TLP. * JMeter. Lots of commits from Sebb, but not a big community. For all three of these the best solution I can think of is to move them to the Incubator. Keep the lists where they are, move the svn, move the websites. They need to be thinking TLP, they need to get community. -- 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. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Henri Yandell wrote: * Slide. There's some sign of activity here. Not enough yet. * Cactus. Tiny bit of activity, again not enough for a TLP. * JMeter. Lots of commits from Sebb, but not a big community. For all three of these the best solution I can think of is to move them to the Incubator. Keep the lists where they are, move the svn, move the websites. They need to be thinking TLP, they need to get community. I think the people that work on and use these projects would feel somewhat marginalized if they were pushed over to Incubator. How about we have four categories in Jakarta Commons becomes Jakarta: * proper * sandbox * dormant * jakarta-holdouts (replace this with a better name of your choosing) The last one being a home for these projects until they can find a home elsewhere (tlp or otherwise). Would it be correct to say that one of the reasons for a commons to go tlp was that a more focused PMC is required going forward? This would still be possible with a few holdouts in the mix. Scott (crawls back under rock) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/15/07, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From a practical pov isn't java already associated with the word grouping commons apache? No, that's the point http://commons.apache.org/ Although this commons project was supposed to replace the commons efforts in jakarta.apache and xml.apache d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/14/07, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From a practical pov isn't java already associated with the word grouping commons apache? To Java folks it is. But, XML has a Commons too, as does Web Services. A third group tried to create a top-level Commons last year, and creating Commons for other languages has been discussed in other places. Once we have a Commons PMC for the Java language, other folks will want to do the same. If you need a differentiator I would put it in the commons-net.apache.org or whatever name instead of soiling the existing branding that has already been cemented in everyones minds whether people like it or not. The underlying problem is that Sun won't like us use Java as a modifier. The reason we use the word Jakarta is because Sun asked us to find another host name. The brand that is cemented in everyone's mind is Jakarta == Java. Speaking as the knucklehead who suggested the Commons subproject name in the first place, I don't believe it is in the spirit of the Foundation, or the Commons ideal, for us to assume such a generic name all to ourselves. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/14/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, from a practical matter, our projects already use org.apache.commons, so
this is
already recognised in the ASF.
Verbose package names are a Java notion, and they are only relevant
within a Java application. Regardless of whether there are other
{$Language} Commons projects, we could still use the o.a.c package
name.
On 5/15/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's the point http://commons.apache.org/
I think what's important is that the Java-language Commons PMC not
hijack the top-level hostname space or the top-level projectname space
all to ourselves. If we plan to share the hostname space with other
TLPs, then we all we need to do is make the base URI
* http://commons.apache.org/jakarta
or
* http://jakarta.commons.apache.org
instead. But, we should do that from the beginning, rather than try
and retrofit it later.
The key point would be what modifier to use along with the Commons
moniker. We can't use Java, because Sun will likely complain again.
We could use some other modifier, but we already adopted the term
Jakarta for this very reason.
We can create a Jakarta Commons PMC without affecting the future of
the Jakata PMC. We should stop thinking of Jakarta only as an
entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for
Java, as originally intended.
-Ted.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/15/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can create a Jakarta Commons PMC without affecting the future of the Jakata PMC. We should stop thinking of Jakarta only as an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for Java, as originally intended. Very interesting thought in terms of the What do we call Harmony if we can't call it Java?. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/14/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my random suggestion that Ted quoted points out, you can have a PMC without their having to be TLP. Least I was told that a couple of years ago either on board@ or face to face, so we could do the following: * Create the Jakarta Commons PMC, without changing the website (or even the svn maybe). * Continue to encourage Jakarta subprojects to move to TLP, go into maintenance or move over to other PMCs. * Reach a point at which we can end the Jakarta PMC, or federate or whatever. Do you mean that the resources can then be handed over to the Jakarta-commons (or whatever) PMC? I'm in favour of that idea, jakarta==jakarta-commons is the option which I think makes most sense of all for the future of Jakarta. 1/ it preserves a valuable brand 2/ commons embodies the original ethos of Jakarta 3/ commons (as we've seen hints of) still actively depends (c.f passively benefiting) upon the Jakarta brand. To close down the project and hand the brand to another PMC would also meet all but the most draconian interpretation of what the reorg@ discussions suggested needed to be done about the problem of Jakarta. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... -1 I would like to see the issues raised regarding the name resolved. I would also like to see the options regarding commons as a successor to the Jakarta PMC more fully explored. Once consensus is forthcoming on these point I will vote +1 to TLP for commons. I don't believe that commons TLP can be decided in isolation from consensus about the future for either a) the jakarta pmc and b) the jakarta brand. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
-1 to Commons being Jakarta. Commons should be commons, have its own PMC/domain. It already has its own brand recognition. I had an interesting conversation with a large financial customer about it just before I left JBoss. They weren't clearly even aware that commons was part of Jakarta. -Andy Danny Angus wrote: On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... -1 I would like to see the issues raised regarding the name resolved. I would also like to see the options regarding commons as a successor to the Jakarta PMC more fully explored. Once consensus is forthcoming on these point I will vote +1 to TLP for commons. I don't believe that commons TLP can be decided in isolation from consensus about the future for either a) the jakarta pmc and b) the jakarta brand. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
If moving commons TLP is just a twisted (maybe a bad choice of a word) way to come back to jakarta.apache.org in the end, I am -1 on the TLP move.. We currently have 2 projects moving TLP (Turbine and POI) and after that we need to start thinking about every other project at Jakarta. So if the goals is to make commons Jakarta, we should aim for that, instead of artificially trying to accomplish that. If I am not mistaken the real goals/questions are : - Fix oversight issues - Be more transparent for the board - Move towards a community with the same focus (= eg reusable java components) - Be able to say in one sentence what Jakarta is about (is consequence of above) - See where we can fit project that are in maintenance mode or not actively supported anymore. - How to handle projects that don't fit well within the new focus, but work pretty well as part of Jakarta (are people waiting for being on eg 15 PMC's to be able to support these projects) - And Apache wide : is there only a place for projects that have a healthy community ? Mvgr, Martin Danny Angus wrote: On 5/14/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my random suggestion that Ted quoted points out, you can have a PMC without their having to be TLP. Least I was told that a couple of years ago either on board@ or face to face, so we could do the following: * Create the Jakarta Commons PMC, without changing the website (or even the svn maybe). * Continue to encourage Jakarta subprojects to move to TLP, go into maintenance or move over to other PMCs. * Reach a point at which we can end the Jakarta PMC, or federate or whatever. Do you mean that the resources can then be handed over to the Jakarta-commons (or whatever) PMC? I'm in favour of that idea, jakarta==jakarta-commons is the option which I think makes most sense of all for the future of Jakarta. 1/ it preserves a valuable brand 2/ commons embodies the original ethos of Jakarta 3/ commons (as we've seen hints of) still actively depends (c.f passively benefiting) upon the Jakarta brand. To close down the project and hand the brand to another PMC would also meet all but the most draconian interpretation of what the reorg@ discussions suggested needed to be done about the problem of Jakarta. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/14/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If moving commons TLP is just a twisted (maybe a bad choice of a word) way to come back to jakarta.apache.org in the end, I am -1 on the TLP move.. IF, its a big if and one I think we need to devote some though, and a *modest* ;-) amount of email to. We currently have 2 projects moving TLP (Turbine and POI) and after that we need to start thinking about every other project at Jakarta. +1 So if the goals is to make commons Jakarta, we should aim for that, instead of artificially trying to accomplish that. IF (see above) - Fix oversight issues +1 - Be more transparent for the board +1 - Move towards a community with the same focus (= eg reusable java components) +1 - Be able to say in one sentence what Jakarta is about (is consequence of above) +1 - See where we can fit project that are in maintenance mode or not actively supported anymore. +1 - How to handle projects that don't fit well within the new focus, but work pretty well as part of Jakarta (are people waiting for being on eg 15 PMC's to be able to support these projects) Not sure which projects you're talking about here. - And Apache wide : is there only a place for projects that have a healthy community ? A Question for the Members to decide I think? d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Travelling ATM, limited internet My preference is for a java-only commons.apache.org. I don't see that as scary or unreasonable. My +1 is based on that assumption. Also, from a practical matter, our projects already use org.apache.commons, so this is already recognised in the ASF. Stephen From: Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If moving commons TLP is just a twisted (maybe a bad choice of a word) way to come back to jakarta.apache.org in the end, I am -1 on the TLP move.. We currently have 2 projects moving TLP (Turbine and POI) and after that we need to start thinking about every other project at Jakarta. So if the goals is to make commons Jakarta, we should aim for that, instead of artificially trying to accomplish that. If I am not mistaken the real goals/questions are : - Fix oversight issues - Be more transparent for the board - Move towards a community with the same focus (= eg reusable java components) - Be able to say in one sentence what Jakarta is about (is consequence of above) - See where we can fit project that are in maintenance mode or not actively supported anymore. - How to handle projects that don't fit well within the new focus, but work pretty well as part of Jakarta (are people waiting for being on eg 15 PMC's to be able to support these projects) - And Apache wide : is there only a place for projects that have a healthy community ? Mvgr, Martin Danny Angus wrote: On 5/14/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my random suggestion that Ted quoted points out, you can have a PMC without their having to be TLP. Least I was told that a couple of years ago either on board@ or face to face, so we could do the following: * Create the Jakarta Commons PMC, without changing the website (or even the svn maybe). * Continue to encourage Jakarta subprojects to move to TLP, go into maintenance or move over to other PMCs. * Reach a point at which we can end the Jakarta PMC, or federate or whatever. Do you mean that the resources can then be handed over to the Jakarta-commons (or whatever) PMC? I'm in favour of that idea, jakarta==jakarta-commons is the option which I think makes most sense of all for the future of Jakarta. 1/ it preserves a valuable brand 2/ commons embodies the original ethos of Jakarta 3/ commons (as we've seen hints of) still actively depends (c.f passively benefiting) upon the Jakarta brand. To close down the project and hand the brand to another PMC would also meet all but the most draconian interpretation of what the reorg@ discussions suggested needed to be done about the problem of Jakarta. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
That's the most logical argument I've seen on this thread. :) +1 (probably not binding and not mattering ) On 5/14/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped Also, from a practical matter, our projects already use org.apache.commons, so this is already recognised in the ASF. Stephen -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Should it be commons4j.apache.org? (j = java or jakarta)? am not worried about the java package name... thanks, dims On 5/14/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Travelling ATM, limited internet My preference is for a java-only commons.apache.org. I don't see that as scary or unreasonable. My +1 is based on that assumption. Also, from a practical matter, our projects already use org.apache.commons, so this is already recognised in the ASF. Stephen From: Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If moving commons TLP is just a twisted (maybe a bad choice of a word) way to come back to jakarta.apache.org in the end, I am -1 on the TLP move.. We currently have 2 projects moving TLP (Turbine and POI) and after that we need to start thinking about every other project at Jakarta. So if the goals is to make commons Jakarta, we should aim for that, instead of artificially trying to accomplish that. If I am not mistaken the real goals/questions are : - Fix oversight issues - Be more transparent for the board - Move towards a community with the same focus (= eg reusable java components) - Be able to say in one sentence what Jakarta is about (is consequence of above) - See where we can fit project that are in maintenance mode or not actively supported anymore. - How to handle projects that don't fit well within the new focus, but work pretty well as part of Jakarta (are people waiting for being on eg 15 PMC's to be able to support these projects) - And Apache wide : is there only a place for projects that have a healthy community ? Mvgr, Martin Danny Angus wrote: On 5/14/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my random suggestion that Ted quoted points out, you can have a PMC without their having to be TLP. Least I was told that a couple of years ago either on board@ or face to face, so we could do the following: * Create the Jakarta Commons PMC, without changing the website (or even the svn maybe). * Continue to encourage Jakarta subprojects to move to TLP, go into maintenance or move over to other PMCs. * Reach a point at which we can end the Jakarta PMC, or federate or whatever. Do you mean that the resources can then be handed over to the Jakarta-commons (or whatever) PMC? I'm in favour of that idea, jakarta==jakarta-commons is the option which I think makes most sense of all for the future of Jakarta. 1/ it preserves a valuable brand 2/ commons embodies the original ethos of Jakarta 3/ commons (as we've seen hints of) still actively depends (c.f passively benefiting) upon the Jakarta brand. To close down the project and hand the brand to another PMC would also meet all but the most draconian interpretation of what the reorg@ discussions suggested needed to be done about the problem of Jakarta. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
From a practical pov isn't java already associated with the word grouping commons apache? If you need a differentiator I would put it in the commons-net.apache.org or whatever name instead of soiling the existing branding that has already been cemented in everyones minds whether people like it or not. On 5/14/07, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should it be commons4j.apache.org? (j = java or jakarta)? am not worried about the java package name... thanks, dims On 5/14/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Travelling ATM, limited internet My preference is for a java-only commons.apache.org. I don't see that as scary or unreasonable. My +1 is based on that assumption. Also, from a practical matter, our projects already use org.apache.commons, so this is already recognised in the ASF. Stephen From: Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If moving commons TLP is just a twisted (maybe a bad choice of a word) way to come back to jakarta.apache.org in the end, I am -1 on the TLP move.. We currently have 2 projects moving TLP (Turbine and POI) and after that we need to start thinking about every other project at Jakarta. So if the goals is to make commons Jakarta, we should aim for that, instead of artificially trying to accomplish that. If I am not mistaken the real goals/questions are : - Fix oversight issues - Be more transparent for the board - Move towards a community with the same focus (= eg reusable java components) - Be able to say in one sentence what Jakarta is about (is consequence of above) - See where we can fit project that are in maintenance mode or not actively supported anymore. - How to handle projects that don't fit well within the new focus, but work pretty well as part of Jakarta (are people waiting for being on eg 15 PMC's to be able to support these projects) - And Apache wide : is there only a place for projects that have a healthy community ? Mvgr, Martin Danny Angus wrote: On 5/14/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As my random suggestion that Ted quoted points out, you can have a PMC without their having to be TLP. Least I was told that a couple of years ago either on board@ or face to face, so we could do the following: * Create the Jakarta Commons PMC, without changing the website (or even the svn maybe). * Continue to encourage Jakarta subprojects to move to TLP, go into maintenance or move over to other PMCs. * Reach a point at which we can end the Jakarta PMC, or federate or whatever. Do you mean that the resources can then be handed over to the Jakarta-commons (or whatever) PMC? I'm in favour of that idea, jakarta==jakarta-commons is the option which I think makes most sense of all for the future of Jakarta. 1/ it preserves a valuable brand 2/ commons embodies the original ethos of Jakarta 3/ commons (as we've seen hints of) still actively depends (c.f passively benefiting) upon the Jakarta brand. To close down the project and hand the brand to another PMC would also meet all but the most draconian interpretation of what the reorg@ discussions suggested needed to be done about the problem of Jakarta. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:06 +0200, Martin van den Bemt wrote: If the new TLP is java-only it seems very rude to take the name commons.apache.org : it's far too generic. Perhaps jakarta-commons.apache.org would be appropriate.. Leaving means not using the Jakarta name anymore. I don't see why. As a member of the Jakarta PMC I'm willing to allow jakarta-commons.apache.org to use our trademark :-) But if that's so then perhaps jcommons.apache.org? Or commons4j.apache.org? (though that implies IBM to me...) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Simon Kitching wrote: On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 01:06 +0200, Martin van den Bemt wrote: If the new TLP is java-only it seems very rude to take the name commons.apache.org : it's far too generic. Perhaps jakarta-commons.apache.org would be appropriate.. Leaving means not using the Jakarta name anymore. I don't see why. As a member of the Jakarta PMC I'm willing to allow jakarta-commons.apache.org to use our trademark :-) The problem is that you will be hijacking the Jakarta name and since the future of Jakarta (and usage of the name) is by no way set, using the Jakarta name in a new commons TLP is for me at this stage a premature call. But if that's so then perhaps jcommons.apache.org? Or commons4j.apache.org? (though that implies IBM to me...) Or coffee.apache.org :) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/13/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why. As a member of the Jakarta PMC I'm willing to allow jakarta-commons.apache.org to use our trademark :-) The problem is that you will be hijacking the Jakarta name and since the future of Jakarta (and usage of the name) is by no way set, using the Jakarta name in a new commons TLP is for me at this stage a premature call. We can't hijack what is ours. This vote is not taking place on the Jakarta Commons-Dev list. It is taking place on the Jakarta General List, and, AFIAK, it represents a vote of the *Jakarta* PMC. In the alternative, we hijack the Commons name, which, as others have pointed out, is already being used by other ASF entities, not to mention that it was also used by a top-level project, now closed. * http://commons.apache.org/ I don't know if Henri has discussed the reuse of the Commons TLP name with the Board, but it's possible not everyone will be thrilled with creating a new Commons TLP with a different charter (e.g. Java). Creating a Jakarta Commons PMC avoids overlap with the closed Commons TLP, and avoids overlap with any future projects that might want to create a TLP -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/10/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * 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. The suggestion may have been random, but it's sound. We already have three ASF Commons group, Jakarta, XML, and Web Services. At one point, some of were working on a dotnet proposal * http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/commonsnet/Home It would be niave to believe that the ASF will not want to create another Commons for another language. To clear that path, we only need to include a modifier in the project name as well as the website address. As much as I would like to believe we could create a multi-language Commons project, it just doesn't seem like a realistic goal. Experience shows that we can have multi-language products (iBATIS, Logging, Lucene), but experience also indicates that we can't have multi-language projects with multiple products (Jakarta). I would suggest that the reasonable path would seem to be to * keep the focus of the Jakarta Commons PMC on Java, * keep Jakarta in the new project name, and * use jakarta-commons.apache.org as the host name. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/13/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/13/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why. As a member of the Jakarta PMC I'm willing to allow jakarta-commons.apache.org to use our trademark :-) The problem is that you will be hijacking the Jakarta name and since the future of Jakarta (and usage of the name) is by no way set, using the Jakarta name in a new commons TLP is for me at this stage a premature call. We can't hijack what is ours. This vote is not taking place on the Jakarta Commons-Dev list. It is taking place on the Jakarta General List, and, AFIAK, it represents a vote of the *Jakarta* PMC. In the alternative, we hijack the Commons name, which, as others have pointed out, is already being used by other ASF entities, not to mention that it was also used by a top-level project, now closed. * http://commons.apache.org/ I don't know if Henri has discussed the reuse of the Commons TLP name with the Board, but it's possible not everyone will be thrilled with creating a new Commons TLP with a different charter (e.g. Java). Nope, all I know of in terms of consensus is that the domain name is available - there was an opinion that we shouldn't reuse old names, but the consensus was in favour of commons.apache.org being reusable. That was at least a year ago. I think the Commons consensus that the word Java be in the resolution makes it more likely that there will be debate. Creating a Jakarta Commons PMC avoids overlap with the closed Commons TLP, and avoids overlap with any future projects that might want to create a TLP Neither of those seem like things to avoid. The thing to avoid is being commons.apache.org and then refusing to allow ws-commons to move to commons.apache.org if they desired, or for .net commons to be started there. Maybe the drawing board is needed again. As my random suggestion that Ted quoted points out, you can have a PMC without their having to be TLP. Least I was told that a couple of years ago either on board@ or face to face, so we could do the following: * Create the Jakarta Commons PMC, without changing the website (or even the svn maybe). * Continue to encourage Jakarta subprojects to move to TLP, go into maintenance or move over to other PMCs. * Reach a point at which we can end the Jakarta PMC, or federate or whatever. Basically we want to clean a room up, but we don't have a spare empty room to use as a staging point. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... I'm not really convinced that this change will improve anything. In particular I'd be sad to lose the current SVN access system, where any Jakarta committer has commit access to any other Jakarta project and general common-sense was used to govern things rather than technical/bureaucratic blocks. I thought this brought down a lot of unnecessary walls, but moving commons to a TLP will erect these walls again I presume. We want committers to apache projects that *use* commons libs to have a fairly low barrier for contributing back to commons; as currently set up any jakarta committer can just do so. However I don't feel strongly enough to vote against this proposal. But I do oppose using the name commons.apache.org. The current jakarta commons community is exclusively Java, and that should remain so. Having multiple languages supported under one PMC will lead more oversight issues, and less community cohesion, than currently exist. If the new TLP is java-only it seems very rude to take the name commons.apache.org : it's far too generic. Perhaps jakarta-commons.apache.org would be appropriate.. BTW, as I don't really support this change I'm reluctant to add my name to the initial PMC list on the wiki page. However if the TLP does go ahead (and that looks likely) then I would like to be on the PMC. What's the best thing to do? Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
If the new TLP is java-only it seems very rude to take the name commons.apache.org : it's far too generic. Perhaps jakarta-commons.apache.org would be appropriate.. Leaving means not using the Jakarta name anymore. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Fuck you guys!!! On 5/9/07, Yegor Kozlov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 Yegor Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Enjoy your day!! http://jeank.awardspace.com/
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. +1 (non binding) http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. I think you have already explained that yesterday, but I didn't understand ... The list seems to be intended for PMCs, not for the hundreds of simple committers like me ? Luc - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Hi! [X ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Ciao, Mario - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. +1 (non binding) http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. I think you have already explained that yesterday, but I didn't understand ... The list seems to be intended for PMCs, not for the hundreds of simple committers like me ? At this time it tends to be common for the new PMC to be formed of the committers. It can depend, if someone is a new committer then it'll be weird adding them to the PMC from the get go (least that seems to be the general opinion). I realized today that this is a subject that hasn't come up - where will the committer list come from. Personally I'm in favour of using the current jakarta committer list to define the list of people with karma to a TLP Commons. If you feel you're an active committer, I'd add your name. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Selon Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At this time it tends to be common for the new PMC to be formed of the committers. It can depend, if someone is a new committer then it'll be weird adding them to the PMC from the get go (least that seems to be the general opinion). I realized today that this is a subject that hasn't come up - where will the committer list come from. Personally I'm in favour of using the current jakarta committer list to define the list of people with karma to a TLP Commons. If you feel you're an active committer, I'd add your name. I am active on commons-math. I would be happy to be more involved, but I let you judge by yourself if I am active enough. Luc - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Then why not just strike the word Java from the resolution now? -Ted. On 5/9/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I think this was discussed before and the consensus was we will change the charter if a C# project actually shows up. Jakarta is dying because there is not enough adhesion between the projects. The binding element of the commons TLP is currently we are developing Java components. If there is significant mass in any other language/technology, it is simple to update the charter later, not to over-engineer it at inception. Best regards Henning On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 15:44 -0400, Ted Husted wrote: It would be nice if the proposal allowed for some flexibility as to language. We do have several ASF products written in C#, and the notion of starting a C# commons has come up a couple of times in discussions between open source C# developers. -Ted. On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
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. 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. 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. 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. If we are open to a TLP Ruby Commons or DotNet Commons, then we should reflect that openness in the resolution and in the project name. We can't use Java (been there, Sun complained). But we can preserve the Jakarta name, and leave the door open for an top-level Apache XML Commons or a top-level Apache C# Commons. So why not the Apache Jakarta Commons Project? Or, if we intend that this PMC provide oversight for components in other languages later, then we should strike the word Java from the resolution now, and clarify our intent. Time is not of the essence, and I believe we should define the scope of the PMC and the commons.apache.org host name and namespace now, rather than create FUD later. It took five hundred email messages to create the commons in the first place, and we can spare a few more to get the TLP resolution right. My suggestion is to * amend the Project name to Apache Jakarta Commons PMC. and setup shop as commons.apache.org/jakarta 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. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/10/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. +1 (non binding) http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. I think you have already explained that yesterday, but I didn't understand ... The list seems to be intended for PMCs, not for the hundreds of simple committers like me ? At this time it tends to be common for the new PMC to be formed of the committers. It can depend, if someone is a new committer then it'll be weird adding them to the PMC from the get go (least that seems to be the general opinion). IMO Luc (and any other active commons committers not on the Jakarta PMC) should add his name if he wants to. I believe we have enough people with experience on the proposed PMC list which means we can accomodate the one or two who haven't been around as long. I realized today that this is a subject that hasn't come up - where will the committer list come from. Personally I'm in favour of using the current jakarta committer list to define the list of people with karma to a TLP Commons. +1, otherwise we'll end up either losing people who have contributed in the past and might want to again or having endless votes to re-grant karma. If you feel you're an active committer, I'd add your name. +1 Niall Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
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. 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. 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. 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. This has been discussed in other threads about Commons going TLP and from my memory it was agreed that it would be java focused. Jakarta had/has oversight problems even though it is java focused - other languages would just make it worse so its not a route I would like us to go down. If we are open to a TLP Ruby Commons or DotNet Commons, then we should reflect that openness in the resolution and in the project name. We can't use Java (been there, Sun complained). But we can preserve the Jakarta name, and leave the door open for an top-level Apache XML Commons or a top-level Apache C# Commons. So why not the Apache Jakarta Commons Project? IMO this seems OT to the Commons proposal - its for the ASF to decide whether similar Ruby, DotNet, etc TLPs are appropriate. Since Commons exists and has been using that name and has a community I don't see why it shouldn't use the namespace. If communities of other languages come along in the future then whats wrong with them finding a different, new namespace for themselves. If they existed now and had been using the name at Apache then I think you would have a case - but as it stands they don't and so IMO there isn't. I'm against Apache Jakarta Commons since thats what we are now - there were a few choices on the table - merge Commons upwards to become Jakarta or move to a TLP. The consensus and proposal was for the latter. Or, if we intend that this PMC provide oversight for components in other languages later, then we should strike the word Java from the resolution now, and clarify our intent. -1 Time is not of the essence, and I believe we should define the scope of the PMC and the commons.apache.org host name and namespace now, rather than create FUD later. It took five hundred email messages to create the commons in the first place, and we can spare a few more to get the TLP resolution right. My suggestion is to * amend the Project name to Apache Jakarta Commons PMC. and setup shop as commons.apache.org/jakarta IMO this is more confusing and see no benefit for Commons of moving from jakarta.apache.org/commons to commons.apache.org/jakarta. 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. IMO using the Commons namespace has no relevance to openness and collaboration for Apache projects in other languages - it just means they need to come up with a different (maybe better!) name. Niall -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
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]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
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/
OT - Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
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]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/9/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 Henri Yandell wrote on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:20 PM: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I am not a Jakarta commiter, and also vote is not binding, but I want to ask something. What are the benefits for commons of moving to a TLP? Also as I read the official commons intro, it states that commons is a project focused on all aspects of reusable Java components. So as we all know Jakarta is a devision of Apache, that deals with the Java open-source projects in the foundation, therefore, as I see it, it would be better for commons to stay in the Jakarta. So, maybe I am wrong, but I don't see any direct benefit for commons to move to a TLP. That's why, I have to vote: -1 and ask you to prove me wrong. Thank you all. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 10:20 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [X] +1 I support the proposal Cheers Jean-Frederic [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
[X] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... diffing the Wiki text against the template in SVN (https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/templates/subproject-tlp-resolution.txt) shows significant differences. I'd like you to update the proposal accordingly. As this proposal will not make the next board meeting anyway, there is plenty of time to do so. If this is done, then my vote will be +1. Best regards Henning Henri Yandell schrieb: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/9/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [X] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... diffing the Wiki text against the template in SVN (https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/templates/subproject-tlp-resolution.txt) shows significant differences. I'd like you to update the proposal accordingly. As this proposal will not make the next board meeting anyway, there is plenty of time to do so. If this is done, then my vote will be +1. Yeah, there was recent activity in changing that. Turbine/POI ones might have the same problem. I'll get it fixed (unless someone else hops in and does it). Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Don't know about POI, Turbine is fine, Scott used the right template. Best regards Henning Henri Yandell schrieb: On 5/9/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [X] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... diffing the Wiki text against the template in SVN (https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/templates/subproject-tlp-resolution.txt) shows significant differences. I'd like you to update the proposal accordingly. As this proposal will not make the next board meeting anyway, there is plenty of time to do so. If this is done, then my vote will be +1. Yeah, there was recent activity in changing that. Turbine/POI ones might have the same problem. I'll get it fixed (unless someone else hops in and does it). Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 On 5/8/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 Niall On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
This came up on commons-dev when we were discussing the idea: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-commons-dev/200704.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] My reply was: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-commons-dev/200704.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] The hard part, as you pointed out, is that we all know that Jakarta means open source Java. It still shows up on job specs every now and then as its own technology. However from a community point of view, Jakarta is still in many ways the same copy of the Apache it was many years ago and that doesn't fit well into the structure at Apache. Individual communities should be tlps and not be within tlps. The extremely loose direction we're moving in is for the remaining active sub-communities within Jakarta to move to TLP, any nearly active parts to be discussing whether there is a possible new home (for example, Regexp/ORO - Commons has long been discussed) and for inactive projects to be managed in some way (many of the Taglibs while maybe still used have no future and no development activity for years; ECS is also very maintenance and Slide seems to be slowly heading the same way afaik). That still leaves people stuck in a grey area, and we'll need to figure out what to do there. As we're a bunch of subcommunities, we'll continue to do this in our slow galactic-council way. From what I've heard - discussion at ApacheCon in Amsterdam was that we want to continue to do something with the Jakarta name, possibly an open source Java at Apache portal/federation so the old 'Jakarta equals open source Java at Apache' viewpoint can come back :) Of course we might not convince the board on a commons.apache.org, there was something there before and we do have Java in our tlp resolution which may be considered bad. Hope that helps, Hen On 5/8/07, Petar Tahchiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/9/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 Henri Yandell wrote on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:20 PM: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I am not a Jakarta commiter, and also vote is not binding, but I want to ask something. What are the benefits for commons of moving to a TLP? Also as I read the official commons intro, it states that commons is a project focused on all aspects of reusable Java components. So as we all know Jakarta is a devision of Apache, that deals with the Java open-source projects in the foundation, therefore, as I see it, it would be better for commons to stay in the Jakarta. So, maybe I am wrong, but I don't see any direct benefit for commons to move to a TLP. That's why, I have to vote: -1 and ask you to prove me wrong. Thank you all. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 +1 Henri Yandell wrote: [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Bye, Thomas. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkZCAcQACgkQLrlGgoiBdALLHACfXHNOdEknt8KassAOg1Zw0aDS wrkAniK1x6C21S7olNH9xu5HRrvWFzxS =i6z1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
It would be nice if the proposal allowed for some flexibility as to language. We do have several ASF products written in C#, and the notion of starting a C# commons has come up a couple of times in discussions between open source C# developers. -Ted. On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Hi, I think this was discussed before and the consensus was we will change the charter if a C# project actually shows up. Jakarta is dying because there is not enough adhesion between the projects. The binding element of the commons TLP is currently we are developing Java components. If there is significant mass in any other language/technology, it is simple to update the charter later, not to over-engineer it at inception. Best regards Henning On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 15:44 -0400, Ted Husted wrote: It would be nice if the proposal allowed for some flexibility as to language. We do have several ASF products written in C#, and the notion of starting a C# commons has come up a couple of times in discussions between open source C# developers. -Ted. On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 Oliver 2007/5/8, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Henri Yandell wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. +1 ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
I am not a Jakarta commiter, and also vote is not binding, but I want to ask something. What are the benefits for commons of moving to a You are a Jakarta committer :) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On 5/10/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not a Jakarta commiter, and also vote is not binding, but I want to ask something. What are the benefits for commons of moving to a You are a Jakarta committer :) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry about that :-( I meant to say I am not a Jakarta Commons comitter. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 Scott Henri Yandell wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 Henri Yandell wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dennis Lundberg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Henri Yandell wrote: [X] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 On 08.05.2007, at 19:20, Henri Yandell wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Henri Yandell wrote: [X] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
[X] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
[X] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Henri Yandell wrote: [X] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 Niall On 5/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution +1 Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
Leave me out of this sheet On 5/8/07, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 8 May 2007, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution +1 Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Enjoy your day!! http://jeank.awardspace.com/
RE: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 Phil Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Commons moving to TLP
+1 Henri Yandell wrote on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:20 PM: Sadly a bit too late to make the next board meeting I suspect. However, here's a vote for Commons to officially request that it move to TLP. http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/TLPResolution Please add your name if you're a Commons developer and haven't added your name yet. [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Voting will close in one week. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
