Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 90915 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2005 18:09:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Aug 2005 18:09:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 75882 invoked by uid 500); 31 Aug 2005 18:09:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75544 invoked by uid 500); 31 Aug 2005 18:09:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75531 invoked by uid 99); 31 Aug 2005 18:09:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:09:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [128.195.24.168] (HELO scotch.ics.uci.edu) (128.195.24.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:10:05 -0700 Received: from st-augustin.ics.uci.edu (st-augustin.ics.uci.edu [128.195.20.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by scotch.ics.uci.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7VI9mKb024620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:09:48 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: a few steps before approving a project Message-ID: <57451F44F84805026440D391@st-augustin.ics.uci.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r232569 (2005-08-13) on scotch.ics.uci.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.84, clamav-milter version 0.84e on scotch.ics.uci.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=3.2.0-r232569 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --On August 31, 2005 11:01:29 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt wrote: > I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new > project proposals. The purpose of these changes would be to allow the > ASF to consider big picture issues related to the acceptance of new > projects into the Incubator, which isn't as likely to happen with our > current set of rules where any of our 30+ PMCs can approve a new > project for incubation and where the Incubator PMC itself has a pretty > informal process for evaluating new proposals. Agreed. > Here are some of the ideas I have in mind (note that some are > dependent on the implementation of others): > > - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official > charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a > sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the > Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval. +1. I'd also be fine if it were semi-lazy consensus - that is, along the lines of what the board does for PMC additions - an Incubator PMC member must ack a proposal approved by a sponsoring PMC and then there is 72 hours for someone to register an objection. If there's an objection, the process halts and waits for a full vote by the Incubator PMC. > - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've > recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they > saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard > questions is answered. +1! > - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s) > proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside > the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if > there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least > we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information. +1000. > - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source > communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC > knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really > only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and > create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in > *before* a project is approved. Good idea; not necessarily a formal change; but a good idea to help us ensure everything goes smoothly (as it can). > - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that > could have any chance of media attention (either because of the > overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy, > expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint > statement with some other organization). +1. > I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the > ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that > should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like > these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project > isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache > foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by > the ASF when it is accepted for incubation. I think these set of steps can help resolve some hiccups we've had with recent Incubating proposals. Thanks. -- justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org