incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <...@daniel.shahaf.name>
Subject Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Date Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:00:18 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800:
> Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation
> effort?  Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no
> harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere?
> I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising
> zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator.
> 

For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction
between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons
(say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons
(say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers).

And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter.

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: 
> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
> > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but
otherwise happy podlings)]
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >>  On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith <stukato@stoo.me.uk>

> > wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> >>>  I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic 
> > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way 
> > or the other soon.
> >> 
> >>  If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no
> >>  question, they both have my vote on that question.
> > 
> > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is
> > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken
> > in the Incubator.
> > 
> >>  If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and
> >>  paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with
> >>  little or no change, then I strongly object.
> > 
> > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC
> > has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that
> > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence.
> > 
> > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it
> > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato
> > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC
> > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now.
> > 
> > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any
> > podling which leaves the main sequence...)
> > 
> > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last.
> > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient
> > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this.
> > 
> > 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
> 

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


Mime
View raw message