Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 35E1E47CD for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 15:06:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 3728 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2011 15:06:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 3634 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2011 15:06:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 3626 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jun 2011 15:06:46 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:06:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.213.171] (HELO mail-yx0-f171.google.com) (209.85.213.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:06:39 +0000 Received: by yxe1 with SMTP id 1so247013yxe.30 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.136.161 with SMTP id w21mr2584036yhi.135.1307545578086; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com Received: by 10.146.86.14 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:05:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DEF81F0.5060003@gmail.com> References: <4DEE890D.6050103@gmail.com> <4DEF81F0.5060003@gmail.com> From: James Carman Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:05:58 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: r6QGYx9TU1AbPn9rF4gizsGOULA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] Revised dormancy policy - take 3 To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > > That would then still require a sandbox promotion VOTE and I see no > reason to fuss with moving svn and the site to the sandbox just to > revive something. =A0The idea in the proposal is you just go back to > hacking on the revived zombie in commons proper svn. =A0The only > material change is the site and JIRA disclaimers are removed. > The reason that I suggested the sandbox (again this illustrates how I think differently than most folks here :) is because a project has been deemed "dormant" for a reason. Either it doesn't have an active community around it anymore or it's just obsolete. Reviving it to the sandbox would be kind of like putting it through the "incubator." In order to put out a release, we need to first make sure it's a "healthy" project and it's something we want to take on and support/maintain. I guess the only special case for this would be when we have some sort of critical vulnerability (security?) issue that needs to be addressed immediately. My idea would take a minimum of 6 days (72-hour vote cycle x2) turn-around, which may be unacceptable. Heck, even the 36-hour turn-around required for a "proper" release vote might be unacceptable to some folks. Of course, folks can build their own versions and use them. This is open source, after all. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org