community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A maturity model for Apache projects
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 18:13:29 GMT
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org> wrote:

>
> 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.


The "always" is relative. AOO has as a project released binaries since
incubator and unless I have misunderstood something a number of our java
projects make jar files available.

>
>
>> 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.

+1

rgds
jan i

>
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message