On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 07:06:13PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > Ted Leung wrote: > > I'm unclear as to the project destination here. Your message says its > > WS and the proposal > > says Jakarta. I just looked and couldn't find it. I also couldn't find > > it in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And I don't recall seeing it on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hunh. I just searched the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives for "wsrp4j" (case insensitive). I found ZERO references to wsrp4j in the May/June/July timeframe. Also searched the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive since it was started, and I found ZERO references. So how exactly was this projected "accepted"? I see zero discussion before Ken's post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That seems *very* inappropriate. > > As long has voted to accept it, I've no problem. It's just that I'm on > > the WS PMC and I can't > > remember the vote for this. > > sam, davinum? in the conference with sam and richard jacob > yesterday, ws was clearly identified, and sam commented that > although jakarta had been the original destination it had > been decided that ws was much more appropriate. i guess no-one > updated the wiki. Fair enough, but Sam isn't the decision maker on whether something gets accepted, and not necessarily on where it goes. Especially when there has been zero discussion. > >>the codebase is dependent upon another which is *not* yet open, > >>but which will be licensed appropriately and which is intended > >>to follow the first one as a donation. for internal ibm reasons > >>to which i'm not privy, this must be a rear-drive cart. however, > >>since the horse will have safe licensing, i don't anticipate a > >>problem. > > > > I object to this. I would prefer to see both donated together, > > especially if one cannot work > > without the other. > > can't be done. has to be this way. not our choice. I'm not too concerned about having the dependent code *at* the ASF, since we usually have dependencies on external things. However, I *do* think a necessary precondition is that it becomes available with an ASL-compatible license before the incubation is accepted. > >>please reply asap if you have objections; if i don't see any by > >>monday, i'll assume a lazy consensus and get the ball rolling. > > btw, this is primarily for the pmc, since it's the pmc's vote/decision > about acceptance that determines it. non-pmc opinions are > eagerly solicited, but non-binding and advisory.. My binding vote is -1 until we see the dependency made available. After that, +1 assuming that the WS PMC votes to actually accept the thing post-incubation. I'm also a -1 on the apparent process on how this "arrived" at the Incubator. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
