incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cl...@bea.com>
Subject RE: The 50% Rule (was RE: [Summary ]Re: [TEST+VOTE] Lenya 1.2 Release)
Date Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:07:07 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 12:14 PM:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>> I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
>>>> 
>>>> me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
>>> 
>>> IMO, there ought to be a sufficient independent community such that
>>> if commercial interests drop out, the project can continue.
>> 
>> And the creation of such a community should be a key goal in
>> the incubation.
> 
> As I see it, that is part of the definition of a healthy community,
> which is one of the two primary goals for incubation, the other being
> IP clearance. 

I agree, but IP clearance is somewhat easier to define.  I think the
problem we are faced with is determining how to define a "healthy 
community" when used as a criterion for exiting the incubator.  Many
of us would say we know it when we see it; but, what should our policy
documents say about it?  How quantitative do we want it to be (ratio of 
committers, # of independent committers, user/dev list activity, etc)?

The more quantitative it is, the more a new project can know what they
have ahead of them and the less familiarity with the project's community
is required to cast an informed vote on graduation (just look up the 
numbers).  The less quantitative the rules are, the more room the voting
members have to consider the "know it when you see it" view of the 
community.

Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as one
about independent committers to allow for vetoes) and then leave the rest
up to a voting body that will evaluate graduation against some general 
guidelines.  I also think the voting body should be the PPMC, which is 
made up of the project's committers, the PMC members of the destination
TLP (or the Board if destined to be a TLP itself), and interested members
of the Incubator PMC.  This means that after meeting some minimum 
requirements, the project members along with experienced members of the 
Apache community, who have been watching and participating in the 
developing project, would evaluate the overall health of the community 
and vote accordingly.  Before Roy says anything ;-), I realize that the 
PPMC isn't part of the Bylaws and therefore wouldn't mean anything 
official on its own, but maybe that's where the Incubator PMC would 
ratify the PPMC's decision with a vote in favor, assuming the basic 
process was observed.

(Sorry to slip the PPMC factor into this discussion, but I've always 
liked what we came up with last Nov/Dec, and it hasn't been discussed
much since then.)

Cliff

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


Mime
View raw message