commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <>
Subject Re: 'Apache Commons'
Date Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:08:48 GMT
The general measurement is whether a community (in this case commons) is big 
enough and mature enough to manage its affairs directly, notably in terms of 
reporting to the board, overseeing mailing lists and commits and just 
general housekeeping.

An alternate way of looking at it is whether the rest of Jakarta should have 
any influence on decisions made here. (According to the current rules it 

A third way of looking at it is that the board dislikes sub-projects of 
sub-projects. They don't recognise the concept.  They simply feel too 
cut-off from us. (And to some degree they have legal responsibility for our 
actions, so its not unreasonable for them to want to be informed)

The simplest way of thinking of it is that struts and ant and James and 
Log4J and... are all up there at TLP level. Commons is just as vibrant a 
community as these, and would do just as well at TLP.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rory Winston" <>
>I have been examining the arguments for a java-only commons TLP. I am 
>decidely +0 on the whole business, as I don't believe that there are any 
>concrete benefits beyond some hand-wavey type of intangible "good feel" 
>that will be magically bestowed on Jakarta commons if it takes that step. I 
>am still a little baffled as to how people could have argued that Apache 
>commons == Jakarta commons, when Jakarta commons is currently a sub-project 
>of a sub-project of the Apache foundation? It just doesn't make any sense 
>to me.
> Henri Yandell <> wrote:
>> Time for me to eat my words. Ritual disemboweling etc.
>> I was too eager to view a statement that "a subproject could brand
>> itself as Apache Xxx providing there is no clash" (not an actual
>> quote, just highlighting the statement) as meaning Commons could goto
>> Apache Commons.
>> I took a question to the board@apache list of  whether it was true
>> that Jakarta Commons could move to, and whether it
>> would be required to accept common libraries in other languages.
>> Seems that there is thought that a) the dead might
>> still be a clash and b) that should be language
>> independent, so although there are no categorical rulings that we
>> can't have a+b, they're not answers that we can take for granted
>> either in thinking on TLP-ness.
>> So, many apologies for misleading things. I think some good has come
>> of it in that it's pretty apparant that given the following two
>> assurances:
>> a) Jakarta Commons can move to
>> b) Jakarta Commons can remain Java focused
>> there is a lot of support for Commons as a TLP, but without these two
>> assurances there is not a lot.
>> For the record, I'm +1 on Stephen/Phil's point of view that a
>> Java-only commons TLP is a +1, but otherwise it's a -1.
>> Hen
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> _________________________________________________________________
> Sign up for eircom broadband now and get a free two month trial.*
> Phone 1850 73 00 73 or visit
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message