Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Note that one does not preclude the other. The decision as to whether
> or not to become a TLP should not rest on the charter, although I think
> it is good to understand how the project is going to run prior to
> starting :>.
Agreed.
> You'll have to pardon me here - what were the exact issues you had with
> the charter? I think there was a piece around top level code base?
Very simply: the draft charter defined Xerces sub-projects
as parser implementations in different languages. And it had
no allowance for sub-projects for a particular parser impl.
I don't see any problem with have a PMC that deals with all
Xerces implementations but still considering the different
implementations "projects" with their own sub-projects. For
example, Xerces-J could have an HTML sub-project with the
HTML DOM implementation and an HTML parser built from the
Xerces framework. But the draft charter was explicit about
defining a sub-project as an XML parser implementation in a
particular language.
--
Andy Clark * andyc@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
|