Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96421 invoked from network); 1 May 2005 04:49:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 May 2005 04:49:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 62911 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2005 04:50:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 62884 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2005 04:50:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 62869 invoked by uid 99); 1 May 2005 04:50:27 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from mta206-rme.xtra.co.nz (HELO mta206-rme.xtra.co.nz) (210.86.15.58) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:50:27 -0700 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.240]) by mta206-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20050501044858.OSFY2171.mta206-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 16:48:58 +1200 Received: from [10.1.1.9] ([222.152.204.62]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20050501044858.HLCT4494.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[10.1.1.9]> for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 16:48:58 +1200 Subject: Re: slf4j and log4j From: Simon Kitching Reply-To: skitching@apache.org To: Log4J Developers List In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20050430214525.03357ff0@pop.shell.visi.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20050430214525.03357ff0@pop.shell.visi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 16:49:39 +1200 Message-Id: <1114922979.4411.34.camel@blackbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:09 -0500, Jacob Kjome wrote: > >I am not a member of the slf4j team, so I cannot speak to it's goals, etc. > > I think just about any Log4j committer is part of the slf4j team, unless I > am mistaken. I'm guessing that this probably also extends to > commons-logging developers. In any case, I wouldn't characterize you as > not being part of the slf4j team. I think if you show a development or > steering interest, you are probably part of the team. Ceki, can you > clarify this? I think there is some ambiguity here. How does one become a > committer on the slf4j project? Does one need to have commit access to be > considered part of the slf4j project team? Actually, as SLF4J is just 4 simple core classes + 2 classes per concrete logging library, there isn't much need for a large pool of committers. I would say 3 people (to ensure project continuity) is as many as SLF4J would ever need. The number of people who can *vote* on SLF4J design-related matters is a different issue. I guess the committers for SLF4J are the ones that decide the policy on that, but I would recommend that the policy be that * the committers on SLF4J * plus any committer on log4j * plus any committer on JCL all be entitled to vote, and that voting follow standard ASF procedures. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org