incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <santiago.g...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Date Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:38:13 GMT
El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 10:41 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin escribió:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  * IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively admitting
a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with regard to whether the aggregate
community situation would meet volume + diversity requirements (apologies if this is hard
to parse).
> 
> i think that factoring in the total community would work when
> graduating as a sub-project of an existing TLP
> 
> > Ok, I think the IPMC already is considering this to be a good idea, on
> > a case by case basis.
> 
> i'm a little unhappy about the informality of this approach:
> 
> 1. the incubator is now working ok for larger code bases which aim to
> graduate as TLPs so we need to take care over bending the rules
> 2. adopting this informally means that TLPs will still have the
> dilemma of the judgement call over small codebases with small
> communities


I feel happy that TLPs have to exercise judgement calls. They decide if
a small component is appropriate, the incubator handles IP clearance
oversight and they adopt the one/two committers, handing community
oversight. What is wrong? it is called empowerment, each TLP has a say
in things related to their code

> 3. the current podling setup simulates a TLP rather than a sub-project
> 
> IMHO it would be cleaner and more transparent just to tune the
> graduation process by introducing two separate tracks (one for
> potential TLPs and one potential sub-projects)
> 
> we could do this in a lightweight way by asking podlings to post (when
> they feel ready to start pushing towadrds graduation) a [PROPOSAL] (to
> be approved by lazy consensus) for a target track (TLP or
> sub-project). the IPMC could then transparently treat podlings on each
> track differently, perhaps by adopting slight variations (for example,
> for sub-projects perhaps drafting in committers and PMCers from the
> target project would be useful.)
> 
> opinions?
> 
> - robert
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 


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


Mime
View raw message