incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Date Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:30:25 GMT
Matt Benson wrote:

> I'll apologize in advance because I will probably sound like a total dick
in this email being
> that I'm irritated for unrelated reasons at the moment.

LOL Sorry to hear it, but I must have missed the part where you were so
acting.

> let it now be known that Commons will not become a dumping ground.
> So can we drop this issue and return to the actual subject at hand?

I hope so.  We *all* seem to be in violent agreement on the subject.

> the "permanent" part was mostly targeted at the issue of reducing
repetitive infra tasks on behalf of podlings
> slated to become Commons components.

I am, for the moment, dismissing the infra issues.  Not that I am missing
the point, but becaue we already have a very old precedent for it: the
projects@ mailing list.  So we can probably adopt a similar approach with
Commons.

> I created the new subject in response to Noel's statement that
(paraphrasing) the IPMC would
> like to work with Commons to address its valid issues, but that the
proposal was a false start.

> With respect to bringing in new components from preexisting source with
new-to-the-ASF committers,
> Commons would like to use incubator practices but we are concerned whether
the community exit
> requirements are achievable for the typical Commons component.

Should not be, no.  Consider your comment:

> 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).

That's long settled.  :-)  If a PMC votes that they are going to take
collective responsibility for a project, we have always considered that to
resolve the diveristy requirement.

Components intended for Commons should come through Incubation, but
depending on the nature of the offering and the desire/willingness of
Commons:

 1) Use IP clearance; admit the new committers to Commons and train them
there to be good ASF citizens, alongside their Commons peers.

 2) Bring them through Incubation, as we've done (for example) with
Sanselan.

Do we agree?  Is there anything unsettled except for the infra issue?

	--- Noel



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


Mime
View raw message