geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: Donations & Policies
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:56:41 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 7/11/2005 7:23 PM:

> On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:13 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>     Okay, it seems I was was under the mistaken impression that
>> everyone on the CORBA call wanted the TriFork code to come to a  
>> Geronimo
>> "sandbox area", whereas in fact some people want it to go to the
>> incubator.  I think that's totally acceptable, and I'm sorry I  
>> didn't walk
>> away from the call with a clear picture of what people want.
> Yes, I had the same mis-impression given that everyone said "yes"  
> when we clarified it :)
> It would good to see a show of hands of who actually wanted what,  
> including the TriFork contributors.
> I'll start - I was under the impression that the TriFork CORBA  
> donation would come to the Geronimo project directly and we'd put the  
> code out of the main tree and invite the TriFork people to work on it  
> there with us, integrating it tightly at first into Geronimo, leaving  
> the door open to making a standalone server or TLP later.

This was my understanding as well.  Who is proposing that this is not 
what we had originally proposed?  Please, please, please, don't make me 
read that tennis match of a thread.

>>     After giving the whole issue some more thought, I think I would
>> prefer the TriFork code go to the incubator.  I'm fine going either  way
>> with the web console (incubator or "sandbox area" with own ACL).  I  
>> guess
>> that means that if we need a single policy/guideline, I'd lean  
>> toward the
>> incubator.
I don't see the value add in going directly to the incubator unless they 
wanted to graduate as a TLP out of the gate.  If this is the case, then 
they wouldn't have bothered us to begin w/.

> I think we should have a general policy no matter what the code is.   
> If a contributor bring something like a EJB container, we can always  
> choose to simply vote no - that we don't want it in Geronimo for  
> whatever reason, be it not wanting to insult another project, or not  
> wanting to be on the hook for support...
> But please,  lets create a clear policy independent of who the donor  
> is or what they are donating, and do it now.

I think that we should have a single simple process. 

All vendors must propose the code donation to the community.  
Embarrassing denials can be averted by creating a gmail account and 
asking if people are interested in technology X going into Geronimo.

All code donations go into


The contributors would get restricted committer access to their project; 
granting committer access gives us better visibility how well the person 
works in a community setting.  They and, hopefully Geronimo committers, 
would whip it into shape.  The community would provide guidance and, 
hopefully, vote it into Geronimo once its ready and all the appropriate 
paper work was obtained. 

The "probationary" committers would, hopefully, get voted into Geronimo, 
regardless of their projects status.  I have never heard of a motivated 
developer not getting committer access.

If the contribution was wildly popular it would graduate, as would any 
Geronimo module, to be a sub-project where it would have its own release 
cycles.  If it became obscenely popular, it would become a TLP.


View raw message