Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 12961 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 23:23:15 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 23:23:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 61924 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2003 23:23:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 61667 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2003 23:22:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: no List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 61654 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 23:22:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smta11.mail.ozemail.net) (203.103.165.150) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 23:22:58 -0000 Received: from ozemail.com.au ([63.34.212.194]) by smta11.mail.ozemail.net with ESMTP id <20031027232251.UHPH671.smta11.mail.ozemail.net@ozemail.com.au> for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:22:51 +0000 Message-ID: <3F9DA8D8.20109@ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:23:04 +1100 From: Berin Lautenbach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030831 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Common naming accross policy/process/roles References: <20031027013847.WGID20744.mta05.mail.mel.aone.net.au@[127.0.0.1]> <3F9CE1E0.3090400@ozemail.com.au> <3F9CFE50.9030702@ozemail.com.au> <3F9D15AB.4040704@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <3F9D15AB.4040704@apache.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Leo Simons wrote: > Hi gang, > Okay, okay, I'm exaggerating. Its real cool there's people > volunteering to write all this stuff, and the drafts are not > *that* formal. I'm just suggesting we make it easy for ourselves > and don't try to write "perfect" and "waterproof" docs. We just > need "good enough". > > back to my corner! :>. But I'll bite. It's because you might be clear, the PMC might be clear and the board might be clear on what incubation is, but it is still truly astounding how much argument can be generated *every time* a project comes into incubation over items that should be simple and easy, and that everyone has agreed on in the past! I've also been involved in standard review processes in other lives, and it also amazing (but understandable) how much bitterness and heat can be generated by different projects/products following different review paths. If we document the requirements as we create them then firstly it's easier for those on the PMC down the track, and secondly there is something that everyone can point to and say "this is what was done in the past". It's almost due-diligence on behalf of the incubator. It has been given a task by the board. How can it show it is performing that task adequately in each case if it cannot go back to a normative reference? Cheers, Berin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org