incubator-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache Wiki <wikidi...@apache.org>
Subject [Incubator Wiki] Update of "AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis" by SebastianBazley
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:52:12 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Incubator Wiki" for change notification.

The "AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis" page has been changed by SebastianBazley:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis?action=diff&rev1=5&rev2=6

Comment:
Typo and grammar

  
  = Groom & Evaluate Proposals for new Podlings =
  
- The IPMC is the go-to place for incoming projects. Its web site provides a clear target.
It has 'brand presence' in the outside work, and positive brand presence, at that. Angry email
exchanges (and other more material problems) has not (yet) translated into the outside world
seeing the Incubator as some sort of a crocodile-infested moat around the ASF.
+ The IPMC is the go-to place for incoming projects. Its web site provides a clear target.
It has 'brand presence' in the outside world, and positive brand presence, at that. Angry
email exchanges (and other more material problems) has not (yet) translated into the outside
world seeing the Incubator as some sort of a crocodile-infested moat around the ASF.
  
  The IPMC is a resource here. It has a public mailing list, and that list reaches people
who have useful experience. 
  
@@ -27, +27 @@

  
  Writing as a low-intensity ComDev participant, I think that this would be more accurate
to write, "IPMC members of good will can join ComDev." The result, I claim, is to recreate
a very substantial subset of the incubator as we know it under the (more confusing) name of
ComDev.
  
- Evaluating proposals has not been a big topic of controversy. Still, I wonder if we'd have
less problem podlings if we had, well, less podlings. In fact, I'm sure that this is true,
but it doesn't make it a great idea. In any case, board members reacting to Chris' proposal
have asked for someone else than them to evaluate. Personally, I find the 'members@' suggestion
laughable. No public mailing list, no leadership, no track record in making decisions. If
the IPMC is torn down as we know it, *something* else will have to be invented if only for
this job.
+ Evaluating proposals has not been a big topic of controversy. Still, I wonder if we'd have
fewer problem podlings if we had, well, fewer podlings. In fact, I'm sure that this is true,
but it doesn't make it a great idea. In any case, board members reacting to Chris' proposal
have asked for someone else than them to evaluate. Personally, I find the 'members@' suggestion
laughable. No public mailing list, no leadership, no track record in making decisions. If
the IPMC is torn down as we know it, *something* else will have to be invented if only for
this job.
  
  = IP Clearance =
  
@@ -57, +57 @@

  
  I ask, however, 'Does this have to happen at inception?' We could construct a lifecycle
for projects with three instars: podling, probation, and TLP. New projects could live in an
IPMC until they complete IP clearance and show an understanding of basic governance. Then
they could become probationary projects, as in Chris' proposal.
  
- The natural size of an IPMC in this scheme is smaller, since there will be less projects
in it. This would alleviate the 'if 100 people are in charge no one is in charge' problem.
+ The natural size of an IPMC in this scheme is smaller, since there will be fewer projects
in it. This would alleviate the 'if 100 people are in charge no one is in charge' problem.
  
  Should a probationary project still have 'incubator' slapped all over its mailing lists,
release bundles, and website, like a leper carrying a bell? I don't know.
  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cvs-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cvs-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message