Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: The 50% Rule
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:08:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4C2F1577F2EF2840A9AE9EC61860C881976B8A@usseex01.amer.bea.com>
Thread-Topic: The 50% Rule
Thread-Index: AcRSY8H5RgI0Fhj6T1u1HhbiEqyj6QACEPBg
From: "Cliff Schmidt" <cliff@bea.com>
To: <general@incubator.apache.org>

Leo Simons wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 4:01 PM:

> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>> 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).
>=20
> I know an example or two of unhealthy communites where all the numbers
> look just fine. Its just not possible to decide these things based on
> numbers. People interactions are only "measurable" on a statistical
> scale, which we don't have.

I completely agree; this is exactly what I'm concerned with.  I was just =

trying to (in case this wasn't clear to anyone) describe two different=20
approaches to the problem.  The other approach:

Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> 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.

is necessary to some extent, IMO.  Hence my suggestion that:

> 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. =20

Cliff

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