incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:35:49 GMT
>>> 1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with 
>>> regards to the boards
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Okay. Well they are to me.

The board is capable of making any ASF decision and responsible for
everything.  Incubator is responsible for what is listed in the STATUS 
file
and capable of making decisions on those things on behalf of the ASF.

>>> 2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
>>
>> Yep.  Somebody needs to own each request.
>
> Thats a bit backwards..   So a new project coming has an internal 
> owner right?  And he's going to get access from where?  
> Infrastructure,....  He might not be able to subscribe to 
> infrastructure...
>
> Dude... We can agree to disagree but I think incubator has exacerbated 
> the mess.

No, it has simply made it a little more obvious.  The problem we had was
that projects were being accepted without due diligence.  The choice is
now either to perform due diligence or not accept the project.  Sorry if
that slows things down, but I would rather not accept any more projects
than continue to ignore the dirty laundry.

>>> 3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to 
>>> Tapestry, its first project.  Nor does it appear to have benefitted 
>>> from it.
>>
>> Irrelevant.  The ASF benefits from it, or at least will once it 
>> crosses
>> the hump.
>
> Great.  How will this happen?  Whats the plan to get there?  And it 
> will be a logical falacy to put that back on me as I don't believe it 
> will in its present form/etc. ;-)

The usual way -- people wanting it to happen will make it happen.  If 
people
don't want it to happen, it won't happen.  However, let me make this
perfectly clear: anyone who thinks non-action on the part of incubator
will result in this process being handed back to the PMCs is smoking
some very bad dope.  The default will be to not accept the project.
If you want to improve incubation, then you will have to improve
the incubator, and the only way to do that is by volunteering.

>> Of course it should be expanded.  The PMC should be the people doing 
>> the
>> incubation.  However, if we get no volunteers, then the correct 
>> response
>> is that the ASF should not be accepting new projects.
>
> Well I sheparded the Tapestry thing so far as I had access to do so.  
> What role was the incubator supposed to play in this?

You were supposed to be the incubator.

>>> I think the real problem here is that we're moving the 
>>> responsibility away from those whom are motivated to accept it.
>>
>> No, we aren't.  The problem is that the people motivated to accept it
>> are not motivated to do the work of accepting it, and hence are not 
>> here
>> doing that work.  Much of that is simply because they don't know that
>> they need to be here, they don't know what the work is, and they don't
>> know what is acceptable.
>>
>> Expecting some uncle-PMC to do those things is just backwards.
>
> So if the purpose of the PMC is to what?

The PMC exists for the same reason other projects have PMCs -- to make
sure that committers get commit privs, to approve the guidelines when
they are documented, and to identify those people who have been given
the authority to make decisions on behalf of the ASF within its scope.
The PMC is supposed to be the people doing the work.

> Dion, myself and the tapestry committers did all the work with 
> Tapestry.  So if thats the program congrats it worked...just don't 
> know what good the icubator did for it.

You are the incubator.  What do you think?

....Roy


Mime
View raw message