Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project as a member of the "federation" of XML projects

Neil Graham wrote:
> But they do seem to have quite a number of the characteristics of
> subprojects:  their architectures are quite vastly different (especially
> Xerces-C and Xerces-J 2, the most active); with a few exceptions their
> committer bases are disjoint--and in the two cases I'm aware of in which
> [...]
> Does that meet any of your concerns?

Not really.

I guess the problem I have with it is that, to me, a sub-
project should be related to a parent project which has
some physical code. But if you make Xerces-J, Xerces-C,
etc. sub-projects, what is their parent? An HTML document
with links to the respective sets of documentation? That
doesn't really seem like a project.

And if the Xerces sub-projects are defined as a parser
in a particular language, where is the room to add real
sub-projects related to a particular parser codebase? As
written, this charter doesn't allow for that -- donations
would have to be fully adopted into the codebase for a
parser code in a particular language.

Disjoint developer communities for parser implementations
does not imply that they should be separate sub-projects.
So I don't think that I can support this draft of the new
charter.

Anyone in dis/agreement? What are your thoughts?

-- 
Andy Clark * [email protected]