What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the project name "Apache Jakarta Commons" still be a problem for you if the physical infrastructure remained "here", under the Jakarta hostname?
-Ted. On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, should just stay here till they are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project. Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: > On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean >> no one has >> expressed objections (you even responded to those objections) > > Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say > that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do > you still feel that way? > > -Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
