hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Abele <e...@codefaktor.de>
Subject Re: TLP proposal draft
Date Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:24:17 GMT
On 27.10.2007, at 22:07, Roland Weber wrote:

> Hi folks,
> against all odds, I've found a few minutes to draft a TLP proposal
> based on the consensus we reached during the discussion. I put it
> in the Jakarta Wiki, to keep general@Jakarta in the loop:
> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPHttpComponents

Nice, some notes:

1st paragraph is missing the reference to open-source software, e.g.  
make it:

"...charged with the creation and maintenance of *open-source  
software* related to a toolset of low level Java components focused  
on HTTP and *associated* protocols..."

3rd paragraph should define the responsibility and shouldn't repeat  
"in charge", e.g. make it:

"...and hereby *is responsible* for the creation and maintenance of  
software related to a toolset of..."

I'm not so sure about the 4th parapgraph: the first part is implicit  
anyway (adoption), the second part is fine but sounds a bit strange -  
dunno, I guess the board will have questions here, but it probably  
isn't a show-stopper, so best is to leave it as it is and wait on  

8th paragraph:

"...of the Apache Jakarta HttpComponents Project's components..."  
should be
"...of the Apache Jakarta HttpComponents subproject..."

10th paragraph should mention both artifacts of the two prior  
paragrahps, e.g. make it:

"...that all responsibilities pertaining to the Jakarta  
HttpComponents and Jakarta Commons HttpClient subprojects encumbered  
upon the Apache Jakarta Project..."

Also, most of the previous proposals (not all!) had the following  

"RESOLVED, that the initial Apache HttpComponents Project be and  
hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to  
encourage open development and increased participation in the
Apache HttpComponents Project; and be it further"

Not really sure if we should add this too but since we'll need some  
basic bylaws anyway, it can't really hurt.

> ...
> The phrasing is terrible.

I don't think so, it isn't that bad.

> Is that style of endless worm sentences
> actually mandatory, or is it just a convention nobody every cared
> to contest?

Well, it's legal language and that's the way it used to be so let's  
just live with it and don't worry...

> ...
> In the scope description, I've dropped the "transport aspects"
> qualifier. That was mainly an editorial decision, since I couldn't
> find a way to disambiguate the phrase without creating an even
> worse word snake...

+1, no worries here.

> Please let me know what you think, and/or edit the wiki directly.

See above, I've sent the changes/additions here first for potential  
discussion - happy to incorporate them if we agree.

> I suggest to wait with putting in our names until the proposal
> itself has been reviewed.

Aye, makes sense.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message