incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Greg Stein" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Fluoride
Date Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:29:39 GMT
On 8/24/06, Leo Simons <> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:51:33PM -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > Do proposed projects by current ASF members need official mentors and
> > champions who are different than the proposer?
> What Noel and others have said in the past is "essentially you need 3 +1s
> from ASF members" (and sometimes "incubator PMC members" instead, I guess
> what matters is somehow "minimum bindingness"). Which I sorta agree with.

I would disagree. A committer on an existing project has a TON of
leeway in spinning up a new branch and going wild. And maybe only
peripherally associated with the TLP where that branch is sitting. To
me, it seems that we should provide even more leeway to existing
committers and practically total leeway to ASF members to create a
podling to explore their creativity. What possible reason would we
have to stifle that?

(corollary: +1 whatever/however Ian wants to define this project)

> That said, I wouldn't suggest starting on something without having a real
> good feeling about having enough people to commit time to something.

Justin and I made a go of it with serf here at the ASF, and eventually
saw no pickup, so went ahead and moved it to (eventually) Google Code.
I would expect the same pattern here at the ASF. Let a Member (or
committer) do their thing, try to attract others, and rely on them to
retire the project if appropriate.

The original proposal:
bluntly: f*k the g*dm*d users list. You got zero code, so there is no
purpose to a users list. Fork that out of the dev list if/when it is
appropriate. I'd even suggest sending all commits to the dev list to
start with. All initial developers should see all commits. When the
project grows, then fine: split it. But if you have two (oh, sorry,
one!) developers, then why two lists?

That said, I'm not quite sure where this fits in. Is the idea to get,
say, "all people in the (corporate) department to subscribe to their
feeds via this software"? Or is it more "a site publishing N feeds
should do it via this software"? I'm assuming the latter, in which
case, I'd be a little more interested in whether this software is
intended to be the primary feed producer (from arbitrary data
sources), or will an alternate republishing of a site's feeds.


Greg Stein,

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message