ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Ant as a top-level project
Date Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:23:37 GMT
I think we should postpone this discussion until we get an
official board position on the legal issues.

It seems a decision is made based on this email from Roy.

Is Roy saying that jakarta commiters are not protected unless
each is member of the PMC ? That means that for the last 
2 years the ASF didn't offer the legal protection it was supposed
to do ? And the board just ignored the problem for some reasons ?  Roy is 
also saying that having a PMC requires beeing a top level project ( i.e. 
out of jakarta - which seems to be his goal ). At the same time other 
board members seem to have a different opinion.

I think it is better to wait for the Board to clarify those issues.
If indeed this is required from legal point of view - then 
we have no other choice and the argument that Stefano and Nicola
is using should apply to all jakarta projects, automatically and 
asap. Or to imediately disolve jakarta PMC ( which wouldn't be
bad :-), and create a new Jakarta PMC formed by all jakarta

Nicola - I partially understand your enthusiasm. But shouldn't
you first do this in avalon and cocoon ? Centipede is a nice
project, but I think you're taking a very wrong approach to promote

Stefan - I can't argue with your decision, but I think you are
making it based on wrong data.

This is a majority decision - but seems like an important one,
and we should at least have a clear understanding of the legal
issues and a clear proposal with each decision clearly defined
( wich doesn't seem the case ).

1. Should Ant have a formal PMC ? My vote is +1

2. Who should be part of this PMC ? My vote is for 'all active commiters'.

3. Should Ant be a top level project ? My vote is -0.

4. Should Ant have a domain ? Certainly +1

5. Should Ant leave Jakarta ? My strong -1.

6. Should Ant be transformed into a group of projects including centipede,
maven, etc ? I think -1.

7. Should Centipede be accepted in apache/jakarta ? +1

8. Should Forest be the default content generation in 
jakarta/apache/incubator/etc ? -1 ( for the same reason I -1
'lets convert all to maven' )


>>>The concept of a PMC, and the reason that anyone having a vote on
>>>the project code-base should be a member of the PMC, is to provide
>>>legal protection to those people as individuals.  Not being on a PMC
>>>(as defined by the bylaws) means that each and every decision made
>>>by those committers is outside the scope of Apache's legal
>>>protection, which in turn means that if a mistake is made (or some
>>>asshole lawyer just feels like it), any suit against the committer
>>>actions (such as infringement of some unknown patent) would have to
>>>be defended by the committers on their own.  The ASF would be able
>>>to defend the code itself, but not the people whose actions were
>>>outside the PMC.
>> with that, I pretty much feel that every Ant committer needs to be in
>> a PMC to gain the protection she/he deserves.  To do that, Ant would
>> have to become a top-level project, thus my +1 above.
> I agree, this is exactly the point.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message