incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Will Glass-Husain" <wglasshus...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: On incubating releases
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:04:59 GMT
Hi,

I found this comment enlightening.

> When a release is done in the incubator, we could say that it has met
> our criteria for open source (legal bits all in order) but not for open
> development (community not yet sufficient for sustainability).

I voted against the proposal before, but thinking about it, I might have
been a bit confused.  if the IP clearance is fine but the community is
unproven, is there really a problem with including a dependency via Maven?

As a parallel (if contrived) example.  For example, as a user of Velocity,
which includes commons-lang, I care about the community of Velocity.  I also
care (very important!)  that all downloaded code has the the right IP
clearance.  However, I really don't care if commons-lang has a community or
not (no offence to the Commons folks, this is just an example).  If I am
using Velocity, I assume the Velocity community will help me.

WILL

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 14:41 +0200, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Branching off from the release distribution vote.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > This vote has made it quite clear that we have a much deeper
> > > disagreement over the status of incubating releases, and that we
> > > really should reach some consensus on that before nailing down
> > > decisions on release distribution.
> >
> > AFAUI there are three positions that people are advocating:
> >
> >     a) Releases with no other strings than the ALv2 attached
> >     b) Releases with requirements to notify downstream users
> >     c) No releases
> >
> > Personally I think that position b conflicts with both the letter and
> > the spirit of ALv2, and that position c is damaging to incubating
> > projects. Also, if a was not an option, I'd rather opt for c than b as
> > I think c is at least a logically consistent position.
>
> I think there's more to it that that. We need to consider the two
> aspects of what Apache stands for: open source and open development.
>
> When a release is done in the incubator, we could say that it has met
> our criteria for open source (legal bits all in order) but not for open
> development (community not yet sufficient for sustainability).
>
> Then, we have two groups of people who relate to releases - developers
> and users. Clearly, questions have been raised about how these two
> groups of users should relate to, and what they should expect of, an
> incubator release - that is one for which the ASF is not yet prepared to
> vouch for the community behind it.
>
> So, we end up with two sets of questions:
>
>  * Do we want users to have easy access to these releases, or to make
>   it difficult? Users need to know about the fact that Apache does not
>   yet vouch for the community behind these releases. How do we go
>   about ensuring that they do know and understand?
>  * How do we encourage developers and their communities to move as
>   quickly as possible towards graduation without placing unnecessary
>   and even arbitrary restrictions around them?
>
> These really the principles that need to be addressed before we can go
> on to discuss the details of how we intend to treat a release.
>
> Upayavira
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Forio Business Simulations

Will Glass-Husain
wglass@forio.com
www.forio.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message