Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26655 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2005 05:06:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Sep 2005 05:06:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 73763 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2005 05:06:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 73638 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2005 05:06:09 -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 73624 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2005 05:06:09 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:06:09 -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 [211.24.132.29] (HELO f1.bali.ac) (211.24.132.29) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:06:23 -0700 Received: from clt-5-150.netcompartner.com ([218.208.207.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by f1.bali.ac (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j825Taq8002455 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:29:37 +0800 From: Niclas Hedhman To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: a few steps before approving a project Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:06:02 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <19e0530f050901125761816a27@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509021306.02665.niclas@hedhman.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Friday 02 September 2005 04:11, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > I just would like to hear more thoughts from people about whether > there are things we could do to improve our process of approving new > proposals as the ASF continues to grow. Whether or not the ASF needs both belt and suspenders seems to be a tricky task. On one hand, the ICLA requires the contributor to be the original author, but on the other hand it seems that this is not enough, in case such code have had some kind of public exposure. I just don't get it. Why does that matter, compared to the "original contributor" outright stealing the code from somewhere else? We assume that this doesn't happen, and why should we therefor assume that a package for a new subproject that a existing ASF committer has hacked together, gained some fellow ASFers support for and ready to jump in 'somewhere' would require "audit trail", signatures from employer and what not. IMVHO, let the committers experiment outside ASF repositories without requirement to go through Incubation. As for commercial codebases turned OpenSource, projects sponsored by companies, projects wanting to implement specifications, projects hosted elsewhere prior to coming to ASF and codebases with many, possibly independent, authors is what I thought the Incubator was initially for. Here I have no problem that a very rigorous process is put in place, with strict requirements for graduation, PROVIDED that those are well-known, objective/measurable and understood. Another danger that may lurk in the shadows, is that the "Apache Way" gets diluted by too fast influx of new projects/committers, and mentors/champions taking on more than they should. Not sure if it is true, but I get the feeling that more and more projects have "passive committers" to increase numbers and gain credibility. My devaluing 2 cents. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org