geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Date Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:08:35 GMT
-----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?
> 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.

> 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 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. :-)
- --
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRBcUs5rNPMCpn3XdAQLA/AQAvkHNgfZ04zg4kdwMNQu7+b2GghWUu+nf
kHi8oCr9EAhI/LthNlX+BkrIk02Nrg6VbC+I0Gu5vwAB7D2/VnLeBKbwSAOYMfwp
CmOg9DPJ/lOsQQsD5fzb6T2hSp78foEdsLYwEItyVUPbRLhEwgC/Sv3ZQQbn5QPF
Do5jCKjEQhA=
=huxO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mime
View raw message