community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nóirín Plunkett <>
Subject Re: Apache Extras Question
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:21:12 GMT
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<> wrote:
> No, that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing to use Apache Extras, a supposedly sanctioned
> "associated" and not "external" effort that supposedly is amenable (per its own explanation
> that I've cited several times and won't bother doing again) to libraries and licenses
outside of
> the normal ALv2 process to host closely related Apache OODT code there and to leverage
> the org.apache.oodt namespace as part of it.
> Mark Struberg had another concrete suggestion: kudos to him for proposing using
> org.apachextras.oodt (implied). I could live with that, but don't believe I (or anyone
> should have to.

I strongly prefer Mark's suggestion, and I'd like to hear more about
why you think you shouldn't have to "live with it".

You question what we are doing "if our own PMCs can't start up a
project on Apache Extras and use org.apache.* as a namespace", and I
agree that we may not be clear on exactly what the advantage of Apache
Extras is over Google Code, GitHub, or wherever else.

But our own PMCs can't start up a project on Apache Extras (or
anywhere else) and call it an official Apache release either, and to
me, that's the line that decides (socially) what can or can't use the
org.apache.* namespace. (And, afaict, this *is* a social/policy
question, not a legal or technical one.)


View raw message