On Mar 14, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never*
>>> been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed
>>> to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you
>>> (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC
>>> could serve for a podling?
>>
>> If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there
>> was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a
>> PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of
>> the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be
>> subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working
>> with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure
>> we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects
>> that acted as a single whole.
>
> So, basically, the idea that a sponsoring PMC could/should
> direct a podling comes from the time of Geronimo's own incubation?
That was the way it was when we were incubated, and I was not aware
of the change.
>> Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an
>> existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that
>> is supposed merging communities with another.
>
> You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a
> podling will go until graduation,' I take it.
I think a podling can change direction during incubation, but I think
they do and should always have a target in mind.
>> Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup
>> it will be hard to merge.
>
> I disagree. There's nothing preventing the TLP PMC
> members from getting on the PPMC. And other podlings
> have managed to merge with little or no pain. Derby,
> for example.
I think Derby has done a great job integrating into DB, but I would
like to see even closer ties in the Geronimo project.
>> I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to
>> setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target
>> communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous
>> whole. This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to
>> achieve. In originally email I sent out on this and the
>> conversations I had with a some of the board members before the
>> email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities. This is what
>> everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator
>> and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to
>> prevent exactly this....
>
> One of the purposes of the incubator is to normalise expectations.
> 'Indoctrinate,' if you like, newcomers in the Apache ethos. A
> group of people working on an external project, which comes
> wholesale to Apache with that education being provided by the
> accepting TLP, can lead to exactly the sort of problems we had
> a few years ago. So the rules aren't there to prevent the
> consolidation of communities; they're there (in part) to limit
> heresy. :-)
That makes since.
-dain
|