Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Sander Striker wrote:
> > > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM
>
> > > My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation of
a new
> > > TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not entry,
issue.
>
> > That's correct. However, it wouldn't make much sense to let a project
enter
> > when there is no notion of where it would exit too.
> A new TLP is unlikely to happen until the incubation is proven to succeed.
Nor should it. But I don't think that "no notion of where it would exit" is
accurate. As noted in the proposla, it is intended for this project to
become a TLP, as is the Board's desire for all major independent projects.
If that were not an option, I agree with Henri that Jakarta and DB would be
the most likely alternatives.
> I'm +1 on Directory being in Jakarta if it is not possible for a TLP to
> be an exit strategy, and then reassessing its TLP-ness later.
If that were an entry criteria, I'd agree with the concept, although Jakarta
has too much on its plate and should probably be closed to new projects
until more of the existing ones are promoted to TLP status, so I'd suggest
DB, instead. But it ought not come to that, given the Board's TLP
directive.
> 1 Directory as a TLP for exit strategy. Is this possible? When could the
> board /Incubator PMC decide on this?
My understanding is "yes" and "when the podling begins to demonstrate is
maturity", respectively. I don't see that it is particularly different from
asking when a Jakarta or XML project should be promoted to a TLP.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
