On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of >> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's >> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer >> deliverable from Day One. >> >> Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an >> excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and >> TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution. >> > > Didn't I suggest that first? :-)
I took your "business as usual" meaning that TDF simply continued doing their dev/build/release. My point, and maybe you meant it as well, is that they also take on the build/release of OOo on our behalf. > > I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there yet. > There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its > inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially on > Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to > confidently +1 it. > Not strictly replying to the above point, but no proposal is expected to have every possible contingency planned... That is so the podling has the flexibility to determine what needs to be done. TrafficServer, for example, noted the TM issue but the proposal didn't (iirc) determine *what* to do; subversion and spamassissin also had to worry about continuation of code and releases, but again, the proposal didn't define a specific course of action. The intent is to start a podling so *it* can work those issues, handle pre-existing commitments, etc... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
