community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A maturity model for Apache projects
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 18:00:14 GMT

On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
> Good idea.
>
> I would just remove the "only" from "Releases: source code only". 
> Maybe say "Releases: source code at the minimum" ?  It's not a problem 
> to have some projects also release binaries, is it?

Releasing binaries have, to this point, always been a convenience 
service provided by individuals, but that may very well change with the 
new code signing service. I agree that this will need some mulling over.

>
> Shouldn't there be also something about a minimum documentation? Not 
> necessarily doc on source code, but doc on the project (minimal web 
> site,...)?

I would add to that something about where discussions/decisions take 
place, possibly something about contacting projects; private for 
personal/security issues (provided they get disclosed publicly if it's a 
security issue and it has been fixed), public for all else. Some 
projects unfortunately have a tendency to use their private lists for 
much more than committer votes and security issues, which I find is bad 
practice.

With regards,
Daniel.

>
> I can also confirm that Bertrand was talking about this to me at 
> Budapest.  So "ages >= 2 months".  :-)
>
> Vincent
>
> On 2015-01-06 18:28, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
>> related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
>> be useful.
>>
>> So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items:
>>
>> Code: open, discoverable, fully public history, documented provenance
>> Quality: security, backwards compatibility, etc
>> Contributions: welcome from anyone based on technical quality
>> License: Apache License, dependencies must not put additional 
>> restrictions
>> Community: inclusive, meritocratic, no dictators, clear documented 
>> path to entry
>> Discussions and decisions: asynchronous, in a single central place, 
>> archived
>> Decision making: consensus, votes if needed, technical vetoes in the 
>> worst case
>> Independence: from any corporate or organizational influence
>> Releases: source code only, notices, long-lived release format
>>
>> Related efforts, inspiration:
>>
>> http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/12/11/open-or-fauxpen-use-the-oss-watch-openness-rating-tool-to-find-out/

>>
>>
>> http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16
>>
>> -Bertrand
>


Mime
View raw message