geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Date Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:56:08 GMT
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
>>> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
>>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
>>> graduation.
>> 'So close to graduation'?  Whence comes that?  I think that
>> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
>> Noel's opinion that
> If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that  the
> new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation".  So  I hope
> you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with that point.
>>> .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started.  No
>>> PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors.
>> These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the
>> need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF
>> community building' is a sine qua non.  (I have no opinion,
>> myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that
>> has occurred in ActiveMQ.)
> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, 
> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would  simply
> use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be  the home
> for the project.  Since then the incubator rules have been  rewritten
> several time and based on the emails I saw today, the  current rules
> that Noel is promoting (3+ mentors) hasn't even be  approved by the
> incubator.  I personally find this incredibly  frustrating, so please
> take my comments with a grain of salt.
> If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an 
> incrediably bad idea.  Our objective is to create a single community 
> between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI.  Putting 
> these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult.
> I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my 
> opinion, force all projects TLP?   Maybe the incubator is the wrong 
> place to bring these types projects.  Is there another process to  bring
> in a project we plan on integrating?  If not, maybe the board  should
> consider setting something else up.

"If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if
they don't they never were"

I firmly believe that the destination for a code base should be
determined at the EXIT of incubation.  If each and every one of these
ultimately ends up at Geronimo by general consent of all the parties
involved, then (by definition) everybody is happy.

What I am unconfortable with is codebases being proposed with a
precondition being placed on where they land.

A sponsor is needed to inject a bit of accountability into the process,
and to reduce the tendency towards the ASF becoming a sourceforge with
lots of abandoned projects.  But that pretty much is the extent of

Every code base should be looked at with the possibility of being a TLP.
 And with the possibility of being incorporated within an existing project.

Saying "I want ActiveMQ at the ASF", and saying "I think ActiveMQ would
make a fine addition to Geronimo" are both reasonable things to say.
Saying "I want ActiveMQ at the ASF, but only if it is destined to be a
part of Geronimo" is not.

- Sam Ruby

View raw message