I didn't make it explicit as it would look odd in a charter to say what we are not going to do. There are lots of other things that we are not going to do. I believe the updated words, along with an understanding of the Apache way with regards to fostering healthy communities, ought to be sufficient for the new proposal to become the home for SDO Java development. It would be premature to say that Tuscany will not do SDO Java development, since it is not 100% clear to me that the proposal for the new project will be successful. Please note that all my efforts are directed to the code that I have been involved in, SDO Java.I can't speak for SDO C++, so that's another reason why I have not seen fit to include an explicit statement of intention not to do SDO development in the draft Tuscany charter.
Kelvin. On 29/02/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:31 AM, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Implicit in this rewording is the understanding within the Tuscany > > community > > that there would be one Apache home for SDO Java development. > > > > Maybe it would help if this was explicit. > > AIUI the idea is that _all_ sdo work would move out to a new incubator > poddling and thats where all sdo development would happen, so thats > continuing maintenance of the existing v2.1 spec impl, the new jsr235 impl > being proposed on general@, and whatever else related to sdo that might > come > along in the future. > > We need to decide if doing this is a good thing - i.e. better for sdo than > staying part of tuscany - and if we think it is then make a proposal to > the > IPMC for this to happen. > > > ...ant >
