[RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...

+1 votes:
Nathan Bubna
Martin van den Bemt
James Mitchell
Henri Yandell
Jorg Schaible
Henning P. Schmiedehausen
Will Glass-Husain
Torsten Curdt
Rony G. Flatscher
Jesse Kuhnert
Dion Gillard
Daniel Rall
Matthijs Lambooy
Niall Pemberton
Claude Brisson
Malcolm Edgar
Christoph Reck

+0 votes:
-none-

-1 votes:
-none-

I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
those votes are binding. :)

thanks, everyone!

On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
> board. So...
>
> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
>
> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following thread:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
>
> And the vote happens here:
> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> [ ] +0 I don't care
> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>
> Thanks!
>

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no
stated deadline.

I'm +1 and -1.

I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
necessary, but not unreasonable.

I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
going the wrong direction.

If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.

But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)

geir


Nathan Bubna wrote:
> Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
>
> +1 votes:
> Nathan Bubna
> Martin van den Bemt
> James Mitchell
> Henri Yandell
> Jorg Schaible
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> Will Glass-Husain
> Torsten Curdt
> Rony G. Flatscher
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Dion Gillard
> Daniel Rall
> Matthijs Lambooy
> Niall Pemberton
> Claude Brisson
> Malcolm Edgar
> Christoph Reck
>
> +0 votes:
> -none-
>
> -1 votes:
> -none-
>
> I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> those votes are binding. :)
>
> thanks, everyone!
>
> On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
>> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
>> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
>> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
>> board. So...
>>
>> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
>>
>> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
>> thread:
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
>>
>> And the vote happens here:
>> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
>> [ ] +0 I don't care
>> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no
> stated deadline.

Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
and i gave the vote a full week!

Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)

> I'm +1 and -1.
>
> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
> necessary, but not unreasonable.
>
> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
> going the wrong direction.

Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
VelocityTools? :)

And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
Velocity.

> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.

And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
being here would be just about them having the foundation and
infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
decisions.

> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)

Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)

> geir
>
>
> Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
> >
> > +1 votes:
> > Nathan Bubna
> > Martin van den Bemt
> > James Mitchell
> > Henri Yandell
> > Jorg Schaible
> > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> > Will Glass-Husain
> > Torsten Curdt
> > Rony G. Flatscher
> > Jesse Kuhnert
> > Dion Gillard
> > Daniel Rall
> > Matthijs Lambooy
> > Niall Pemberton
> > Claude Brisson
> > Malcolm Edgar
> > Christoph Reck
> >
> > +0 votes:
> > -none-
> >
> > -1 votes:
> > -none-
> >
> > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> > those votes are binding. :)
> >
> > thanks, everyone!
> >
> > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
> >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
> >> board. So...
> >>
> >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
> >>
> >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
> >> thread:
> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
> >>
> >> And the vote happens here:
> >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> >> [ ] +0 I don't care
> >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

Hi,

I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be "another
Jakarta" (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that
Jakata is always considered a bad example).

On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the
number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by
Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects
(VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same
goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity)
will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP.

I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity
and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the
new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider "Clustering" a good thing.

Having a small group of related projects available through a single
point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing.
Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects
are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta
would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow "lost" there. A
project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is
located somewhere else.

For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net),
and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation
of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation
(surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and
Click seem to be an even match.

So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another
Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number
of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good
thing IMHO.

Best regards
Henning


On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no
> > stated deadline.
>
> Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
> and i gave the vote a full week!
>
> Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
>
> > I'm +1 and -1.
> >
> > I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
> > necessary, but not unreasonable.
> >
> > I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
> > planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
> > going the wrong direction.
>
> Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
> your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
> VelocityTools? :)
>
> And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
> that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
> for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
> projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
> or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
> Velocity.
>
> > If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
> > Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
>
> And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
> being here would be just about them having the foundation and
> infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
> community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
> organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
> Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
> the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
> interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
> member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
> decisions.
>
> > But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
> > that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
>
> Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
>
> > geir
> >
> >
> > Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
> > >
> > > +1 votes:
> > > Nathan Bubna
> > > Martin van den Bemt
> > > James Mitchell
> > > Henri Yandell
> > > Jorg Schaible
> > > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> > > Will Glass-Husain
> > > Torsten Curdt
> > > Rony G. Flatscher
> > > Jesse Kuhnert
> > > Dion Gillard
> > > Daniel Rall
> > > Matthijs Lambooy
> > > Niall Pemberton
> > > Claude Brisson
> > > Malcolm Edgar
> > > Christoph Reck
> > >
> > > +0 votes:
> > > -none-
> > >
> > > -1 votes:
> > > -none-
> > >
> > > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> > > those votes are binding. :)
> > >
> > > thanks, everyone!
> > >
> > > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> > >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> > >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
> > >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
> > >> board. So...
> > >>
> > >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> > >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
> > >>
> > >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
> > >> thread:
> > >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
> > >>
> > >> And the vote happens here:
> > >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> > >> [ ] +0 I don't care
> > >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard P. Feynman

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

------=_Part_5509_26156940.1159026188554
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/23/06, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be "another
> Jakarta" (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that
> Jakata is always considered a bad example).
>
> On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the
> number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by
> Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects
> (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same
> goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity)
> will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP.
>
> I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity
> and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the
> new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider "Clustering" a good thing.
>
> Having a small group of related projects available through a single
> point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing.


I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think Lucene is the best
example to point to, though, since it demonstrates how projects can drift.
What I mean is that something like Hadoop should not be part of Lucene, just
as MINA should not be part of Directory. (I think) I understand how both of
these happened, but still, it's something that a Velocity TLP would do well
to bear in mind.

--
Martin Cooper


Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects
> are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta
> would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow "lost" there. A
> project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is
> located somewhere else.
>
> For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net),
> and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation
> of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation
> (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and
> Click seem to be an even match.
>
> So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another
> Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number
> of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good
> thing IMHO.
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
> On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > > This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was
> no
> > > stated deadline.
> >
> > Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
> > and i gave the vote a full week!
> >
> > Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
> >
> > > I'm +1 and -1.
> > >
> > > I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
> > > necessary, but not unreasonable.
> > >
> > > I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
> > > planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
> > > going the wrong direction.
> >
> > Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
> > your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
> > VelocityTools? :)
> >
> > And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
> > that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
> > for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
> > projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
> > or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
> > Velocity.
> >
> > > If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come
> to
> > > Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
> >
> > And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
> > being here would be just about them having the foundation and
> > infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
> > community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
> > organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
> > Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
> > the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
> > interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
> > member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
> > decisions.
> >
> > > But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using
> things
> > > that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
> >
> > Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
> >
> > > geir
> > >
> > >
> > > Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > > > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
> > > >
> > > > +1 votes:
> > > > Nathan Bubna
> > > > Martin van den Bemt
> > > > James Mitchell
> > > > Henri Yandell
> > > > Jorg Schaible
> > > > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> > > > Will Glass-Husain
> > > > Torsten Curdt
> > > > Rony G. Flatscher
> > > > Jesse Kuhnert
> > > > Dion Gillard
> > > > Daniel Rall
> > > > Matthijs Lambooy
> > > > Niall Pemberton
> > > > Claude Brisson
> > > > Malcolm Edgar
> > > > Christoph Reck
> > > >
> > > > +0 votes:
> > > > -none-
> > > >
> > > > -1 votes:
> > > > -none-
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> > > > those votes are binding. :)
> > > >
> > > > thanks, everyone!
> > > >
> > > > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > > >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> > > >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> > > >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked
> us
> > > >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to
> the
> > > >> board. So...
> > > >>
> > > >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> > > >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
> > > >>
> > > >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the
> following
> > > >> thread:
> > > >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
> > > >>
> > > >> And the vote happens here:
> > > >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> > > >> [ ] +0 I don't care
> > > >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
> hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
>
> RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development
> Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering
>
> "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
> public relations for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard P. Feynman
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

------=_Part_5509_26156940.1159026188554--

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no
>> stated deadline.
>
> Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
> and i gave the vote a full week!

Not complaining, just noting why :)

>
> Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
>
>> I'm +1 and -1.
>>
>> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
>> necessary, but not unreasonable.
>>
>> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
>> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
>> going the wrong direction.
>
> Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
> your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
> VelocityTools? :)

Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users,
and struts didn't want it. We didn't create a replacement for struts.
And yeah, it grew in scope.

DVSL was similar. Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it
was home grown.

And "Billy did it too!" isn't really a good reason to do it :)

>
> And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
> that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
> for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
> projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
> or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
> Velocity.

How do you draw the line?

>
>> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
>> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
>
> And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
> being here would be just about them having the foundation and
> infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
> community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
> organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
> Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
> the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
> interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
> member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
> decisions.

Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer.

>
>> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
>> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
>
> Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)

That's not obvious to me.

geir

>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
>> >
>> > +1 votes:
>> > Nathan Bubna
>> > Martin van den Bemt
>> > James Mitchell
>> > Henri Yandell
>> > Jorg Schaible
>> > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
>> > Will Glass-Husain
>> > Torsten Curdt
>> > Rony G. Flatscher
>> > Jesse Kuhnert
>> > Dion Gillard
>> > Daniel Rall
>> > Matthijs Lambooy
>> > Niall Pemberton
>> > Claude Brisson
>> > Malcolm Edgar
>> > Christoph Reck
>> >
>> > +0 votes:
>> > -none-
>> >
>> > -1 votes:
>> > -none-
>> >
>> > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
>> > those votes are binding. :)
>> >
>> > thanks, everyone!
>> >
>> > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
>> >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
>> >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
>> >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
>> >> board. So...
>> >>
>> >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
>> >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
>> >>
>> >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
>> >> thread:
>> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
>> >>
>> >> And the vote happens here:
>> >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
>> >> [ ] +0 I don't care
>> >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

Adding velocity-dev

Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be "another
> Jakarta" (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that
> Jakata is always considered a bad example).

Right - the only thing that was bad about Jakarta is that we grew too
fast for scalable Apache governance, and that people identified more
with Jakarta than with the ASF.

>
> On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the
> number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by
> Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects
> (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same
> goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity)
> will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP.

I understand the whole history. I never understood the pressing need to
push things out of Jakarta - projects were leaving on their own - but it
doesn't really matter.

>
> I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity
> and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the
> new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider "Clustering" a good thing.

I'd like a clearer charter.

>
> Having a small group of related projects available through a single
> point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing.
> Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects
> are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta
> would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow "lost" there. A
> project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is
> located somewhere else.
>
> For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net),
> and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation
> of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation
> (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and
> Click seem to be an even match.
>
> So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another
> Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number
> of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good
> thing IMHO.

I'm worried or I wouldn't be saying anything.

geir

>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
> On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no
>>> stated deadline.
>> Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
>> and i gave the vote a full week!
>>
>> Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
>>
>>> I'm +1 and -1.
>>>
>>> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
>>> necessary, but not unreasonable.
>>>
>>> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
>>> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
>>> going the wrong direction.
>> Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
>> your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
>> VelocityTools? :)
>>
>> And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
>> that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
>> for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
>> projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
>> or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
>> Velocity.
>>
>>> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
>>> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
>> And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
>> being here would be just about them having the foundation and
>> infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
>> community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
>> organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
>> Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
>> the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
>> interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
>> member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
>> decisions.
>>
>>> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
>>> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
>> Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>> Nathan Bubna wrote:
>>>> Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
>>>>
>>>> +1 votes:
>>>> Nathan Bubna
>>>> Martin van den Bemt
>>>> James Mitchell
>>>> Henri Yandell
>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>> Henning P. Schmiedehausen
>>>> Will Glass-Husain
>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>> Rony G. Flatscher
>>>> Jesse Kuhnert
>>>> Dion Gillard
>>>> Daniel Rall
>>>> Matthijs Lambooy
>>>> Niall Pemberton
>>>> Claude Brisson
>>>> Malcolm Edgar
>>>> Christoph Reck
>>>>
>>>> +0 votes:
>>>> -none-
>>>>
>>>> -1 votes:
>>>> -none-
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
>>>> those votes are binding. :)
>>>>
>>>> thanks, everyone!
>>>>
>>>> On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
>>>>> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
>>>>> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
>>>>> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
>>>>> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
>>>>> board. So...
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
>>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
>>>>>
>>>>> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
>>>>> thread:
>>>>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
>>>>>
>>>>> And the vote happens here:
>>>>> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
>>>>> [ ] +0 I don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> > On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> >> I'm +1 and -1.
>> >>
>> >> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
>> >> necessary, but not unreasonable.
>> >>
>> >> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
>> >> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
>> >> going the wrong direction.
>> >
>> > Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
>> > your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
>> > VelocityTools? :)
>>
>> Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users,
>> and struts didn't want it. We didn't create a replacement for struts.
>> And yeah, it grew in scope.
>>
>> DVSL was similar. Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it
>> was home grown.
>>
>> And "Billy did it too!" isn't really a good reason to do it :)
>
> Agreed. And neither do i think "Johnny couldn't do it" is really a
> good reason not too do it. :)

I don't understand that argument. You are trying to say "no, we're not
an umbrella" while saying "yes, we are, but you did it too". I'm having
trouble resolving these two confusing messages.

>
>> > And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
>> > that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
>> > for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
>> > projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
>> > or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
>> > Velocity.
>>
>> How do you draw the line?
>
> That's the real question here. I'd love to hear good thoughts and
> suggestions on this. I wrote/modified the proposal as well as i
> could, but i would very much appreciate more specific feedback on the
> wording of the charter-ish stuff in there. Of course, i'm probably
> explaining my thoughts on this question more clearly in these
> discussions than i did in that document... So, to summarize, the
> "line" should be drawn:
>
> - On a case by case basis.
> - Carefully by the participating members of the Velocity PMC
> - To the exclusion of projects which simply use or support Velocity,
> without being explicitly and primarily built for use with the Velocity
> template engine and/or firmly upon the core Velocity codebase.

Sure - there could be a rule that "it only works with velocity" - IOW,
w/o velocity, it doesn't function.

Velosurf seems to be a good example of this.

> - To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have no
> lasting interest and investment in the health and development of the
> core Velocity codebase.

That's hard to measure. If that's known as a criterion, people will
just say the right things.

>
> How's that sound?
>
>> >> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to
>> come to
>> >> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
>> >
>> > And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
>> > being here would be just about them having the foundation and
>> > infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
>> > community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
>> > organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
>> > Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
>> > the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
>> > interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
>> > member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
>> > decisions.
>>
>> Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer.
>
> I would love it to be. Please help!
>
>> >> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using
>> things
>> >> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
>> >
>> > Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
>>
>> That's not obvious to me.
>
> Hopefully you mean that "wasn't" obvious to you. I've gone to some
> pains to explain this... :)

I'm slow.

geir

>
>> geir
>>
>> >
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> >> > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
>> >> >
>> >> > +1 votes:
>> >> > Nathan Bubna
>> >> > Martin van den Bemt
>> >> > James Mitchell
>> >> > Henri Yandell
>> >> > Jorg Schaible
>> >> > Henning P. Schmiedehausen
>> >> > Will Glass-Husain
>> >> > Torsten Curdt
>> >> > Rony G. Flatscher
>> >> > Jesse Kuhnert
>> >> > Dion Gillard
>> >> > Daniel Rall
>> >> > Matthijs Lambooy
>> >> > Niall Pemberton
>> >> > Claude Brisson
>> >> > Malcolm Edgar
>> >> > Christoph Reck
>> >> >
>> >> > +0 votes:
>> >> > -none-
>> >> >
>> >> > -1 votes:
>> >> > -none-
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
>> >> > those votes are binding. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > thanks, everyone!
>> >> >
>> >> > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> >> >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
>> >> >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
>> >> >> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has
>> asked us
>> >> >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to
>> the
>> >> >> board. So...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
>> >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the
>> following
>> >> >> thread:
>> >> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And the vote happens here:
>> >> >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
>> >> >> [ ] +0 I don't care
>> >> >> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

On 9/24/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >> Nathan Bubna wrote:
> >> > On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >
> >> >> I'm +1 and -1.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not
> >> >> necessary, but not unreasonable.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
> >> >> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
> >> >> going the wrong direction.
> >> >
> >> > Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under
> >> > your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
> >> > VelocityTools? :)
> >>
> >> Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users,
> >> and struts didn't want it. We didn't create a replacement for struts.
> >> And yeah, it grew in scope.
> >>
> >> DVSL was similar. Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it
> >> was home grown.
> >>
> >> And "Billy did it too!" isn't really a good reason to do it :)
> >
> > Agreed. And neither do i think "Johnny couldn't do it" is really a
> > good reason not too do it. :)
>
> I don't understand that argument. You are trying to say "no, we're not
> an umbrella" while saying "yes, we are, but you did it too". I'm having
> trouble resolving these two confusing messages.

I wrote a fairly long post on velocity-dev some weeks back in response
to Martin vdb's concerns (which were similar to yours) that addressed
this confusion. I'll try to summarize briefly...

I don't think the word "umbrella" fits Jakarta. Jakarta is more of a
tarp or at best a canopy of sorts. It's a sack full of projects with
no center. But because the word "umbrella" has been attached to
Jakarta (and Logging and Db and Xml), all of their problems (and few
of their successes) are now unfortunately associated with it around
here.

Velocity, on the other hand, has already been what is in my mind a
functional and successful "umbrella". It has a center pole around
which its the sub-projects have and will continue to revolve.

So, to point: i'm torn between trying to redefine "umbrella" or just
eschew the word altogether due to its illegitimate (IMHO) baggage.

But more specific to the conversation above, i was simply rebutting
your argument that Velocity being an umbrella is something new. My
statement that it was under your leading was tangential. I'm not
pushing this move to TLP on the merits of what other projects or even
Velocity in the past have done or have failed to do well. And rather
than take the time to repeat the reasons, i'll just refer you to my
past posts on the subject.

> >> > And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
> >> > that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
> >> > for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite
> >> > projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
> >> > or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
> >> > Velocity.
> >>
> >> How do you draw the line?
> >
> > That's the real question here. I'd love to hear good thoughts and
> > suggestions on this. I wrote/modified the proposal as well as i
> > could, but i would very much appreciate more specific feedback on the
> > wording of the charter-ish stuff in there. Of course, i'm probably
> > explaining my thoughts on this question more clearly in these
> > discussions than i did in that document... So, to summarize, the
> > "line" should be drawn:
> >
> > - On a case by case basis.
> > - Carefully by the participating members of the Velocity PMC
> > - To the exclusion of projects which simply use or support Velocity,
> > without being explicitly and primarily built for use with the Velocity
> > template engine and/or firmly upon the core Velocity codebase.
>
> Sure - there could be a rule that "it only works with velocity" - IOW,
> w/o velocity, it doesn't function.

Yeah, that sounds like a great way to simplify this criterion!

> Velosurf seems to be a good example of this.
>
> > - To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have no
> > lasting interest and investment in the health and development of the
> > core Velocity codebase.
>
> That's hard to measure. If that's known as a criterion, people will
> just say the right things.

True. Let me try a rephrase of it:

- To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have not
demonstrated consistent interest and investment in the continuing
maintenance and development of the core Velocity codebase.

To me that calls for some evidence like bug reports, patches,
participation on dev@, etc.

> > How's that sound?
> >
> >> >> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to
> >> come to
> >> >> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
> >> >
> >> > And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether
> >> > being here would be just about them having the foundation and
> >> > infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If
> >> > community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
> >> > organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any
> >> > Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
> >> > the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
> >> > interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC
> >> > member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
> >> > decisions.
> >>
> >> Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer.
> >
> > I would love it to be. Please help!
> >
> >> >> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using
> >> things
> >> >> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
> >> >
> >> > Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
> >>
> >> That's not obvious to me.
> >
> > Hopefully you mean that "wasn't" obvious to you. I've gone to some
> > pains to explain this... :)
>
> I'm slow.

funny, and here i thought you were just busy... is Harmony not taking
much time anymore? ;)

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

Hi Folks,

with the voting over and the discussion about the finer print of the
Charter dying down, how does this now continue? As I can see, this must
now become an official request to the board which then must be
approved.

Who sends this to the board? Martin (As Jakarta is the current TLP of
Velocity)? Nathan (as the revolutionary leader running the vote ;-) )?

When is the next board meeting scheduled, BTW?

I would be great to get this off the ground before AC; getting things
like velocity.apache.org set up etc. is much easier if the
infrastructure guys can't hide behind their full mailboxes but are in
the room next to you (and you can bribe them with beer... ;-) )

Best regards
Henning



On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 14:44 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
>
> +1 votes:
> Nathan Bubna
> Martin van den Bemt
> James Mitchell
> Henri Yandell
> Jorg Schaible
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> Will Glass-Husain
> Torsten Curdt
> Rony G. Flatscher
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Dion Gillard
> Daniel Rall
> Matthijs Lambooy
> Niall Pemberton
> Claude Brisson
> Malcolm Edgar
> Christoph Reck
>
> +0 votes:
> -none-
>
> -1 votes:
> -none-
>
> I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
> those votes are binding. :)
>
> thanks, everyone!
>
> On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
> > The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
> > proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
> > umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
> > to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
> > board. So...
> >
> > The proposal is available for your perusal at:
> > http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
> >
> > For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following thread:
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
> >
> > And the vote happens here:
> > [ ] +1 I support the proposal
> > [ ] +0 I don't care
> > [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard P. Feynman

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 21:02 +0200, I scribbled:

> When is the next board meeting scheduled, BTW?

I can actually answer that myself. We missed the Sep 20th board meeting,
so the next will be Wed, Oct 18th, the week after AC US.

Best regards
Henning


--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard P. Feynman

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

On 9/26/06, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> with the voting over and the discussion about the finer print of the
> Charter dying down, how does this now continue? As I can see, this must
> now become an official request to the board which then must be
> approved.
>
> Who sends this to the board? Martin (As Jakarta is the current TLP of
> Velocity)? Nathan (as the revolutionary leader running the vote ;-) )?

Martin sends the resolution in.

> When is the next board meeting scheduled, BTW?
>
> I would be great to get this off the ground before AC; getting things
> like velocity.apache.org set up etc. is much easier if the
> infrastructure guys can't hide behind their full mailboxes but are in
> the room next to you (and you can bribe them with beer... ;-) )

When the resolution comes in, I'll ask if it can be voted on
informally so the TLP can go ahead. I'm pretty sure that's happened on
something else in the past and it would then be officially voted on in
the following board meeting.

Hen

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

FYI..

I am in stress mode currently.. Wednesday I will arrive in Austin though and will catch up with all
Apache related stuff.

Mvgr,
Martin

Nathan Bubna wrote:
> Ok, Geir's +1/-1 has been resolved to just a +1. So the vote now stand as:
>
> +1 votes:
> Nathan Bubna
> Martin van den Bemt
> James Mitchell
> Henri Yandell
> Jorg Schaible
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen
> Will Glass-Husain
> Torsten Curdt
> Rony G. Flatscher
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Dion Gillard
> Daniel Rall
> Matthijs Lambooy
> Niall Pemberton
> Geir Magnusson
> Claude Brisson
> Malcolm Edgar
> Christoph Reck
>
> +0 votes:
> -none-
>
> -1 votes:
> -none-
>
> On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
>> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
>> umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us
>> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
>> board. So...
>>
>> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
>>
>> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
>> thread:
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
>>
>> And the vote happens here:
>> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
>> [ ] +0 I don't care
>> [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>