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
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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..
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
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
[ ] +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
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
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
] 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
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
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
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
- 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
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,
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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 :)
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
-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.
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
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* ;-)
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
+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]
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
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
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
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,
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
[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
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
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
+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.
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
-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)
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]
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
+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
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
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]
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
+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
+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
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
+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
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]
[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]
[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]
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]
+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
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
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.
+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
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
89 matches
Mail list logo
