incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <>
Subject Re: Actively retiring projects
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:54:51 GMT
I don't know about if they could keep their name but from recent
discussions elsewhere I expect they would not be able to continue
using things like org.apache package names which rules out maintenance
of past releases, small poddlings by definition have limited
resources, so would struggle with things like rewriting their
websites, if they used Confluence they probably couldn't get another
license, if they used the new ASF website stuff its not even available
to them. Throwing them out would do a lot of damage and would likely
be the death of a lot of smaller poddlings. Sometimes slow quiet
poddlings do turn around and become successful, the River example
proves that. No one is suggesting letting everyone stay for ever no
matter what but terminating poddlings just because some arbitrary time
period has expired is stupid.


On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
> I wish we could get past the whole idea that we are punishing
> a podling by insisting that they take their work to say github
> instead.  They probably can keep the name since we have no interest
> in it ourselves.
> We maintain an open-door policy for new projects, and I think that
> is a good thing that we should keep.  What we lack is a sensible
> mechanism for reviewing longstanding projects in terms of their
> projected future in this place.  We did NOT promise anyone free
> project hosting, and if they want that there are lots of places
> to get that.  We merely provide an opportunity that with a little
> luck, hard work, and determination, they can join the ASF and
> become an Apache project.  But they deserve an answer at some point.
> Purgatory is not what we were designed to offer, never.
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <>
>> To:;
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Actively retiring projects
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM, ant elder <> wrote:
>>>  On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Sam Ruby <>
>> wrote:
>>>  > Now to go back and answer Ant's question directly,
>>>  Sam, what you replied doesn't really answer my question directly. The
>>>  issue with the long term poddlings which I know about is not that
>>>  their reports are not read, they are in fact read so something else is
>>>  wrong if there is in fact a problem at all. I'm sorry that you're
>> not
>>>  happy with how Kato went, as i said here [1] i expect that to be
>>>  resolved shortly and they will have done that themselves rather than
>>>  being pushed out by Incubator PMC which i think is a good outcome.
>>>  <big snip>
>>>  >
>>>  > Speaking as an individual Director here, but we have a board meeting
>>>  > in a few days and I can obtain an Official Word™ on the matter if
>>>  > that's what people here would like, but I'm highly confident
>> that the
>>>  > outcome (directed at the chair) will be something along the lines of
>>>  > "see to it that podling reports are adequately vetted before
>>>  > forwarding them to the board"
>>>  >
>>>  I'd prefer to have an official response from the board on if in fact
>>>  it matters if incubation takes longer than a year. Podlings like Nuvem
>>>  or Wink or Photark or Kato or which ever else are just small and slow,
>>>  so what?
>> +1 about "... small and slow, so what?"
>> It is true some podlings are just slow and small regarding attracting *new*
>> blood to the podling's community, but the community itself is active, and
>> IMHO it is not fair to punish them for that.
>> On the other hand we still need to answer the question "OK, so till when we
>> should keep them in the Incubator ?" which is a very valid question,
>> honestly I don't have a definitive answer for that, but I would give a lead
>> to an answer/discussion in a form of a question
>> "Is the Incubator the right place for such podlings ?"
>> If the answer is *yes* then we should find a way to manage the increasing
>> number of accepted podling into the incubator relative to the number of
>> active/available mentors, and also we should keep a list of podlings which
>> are not small and they should be doing good and hence being in the
>> Incubator for some long time indicates that there is something wrong.
>> If the answer is No, then:
>>   - We should ask them to retire, which is not fair IMHO as I mentioned
>> above
>>   - Or Can we create another level of incubtion like, which can be the same
>> as the normal Incubator but we can lessen down the number of initially
>> assigned mentors to 1 and recommend one of the initial committers to become
>> an active Mentor, provided that they have shown that they adapted to the
>> ASF rules very well. This is just a suggestion.
>> Thoughts ?
>>>  (and please note that there is no disrespect intended here. the ideas
>>>  and suggestions in this thread and others recently do seem like good
>>>  stuff to be trying, regardless of the age of a poddling)
>>>    ...ant
>>>  [1]
>>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>  For additional commands, e-mail:
>> --
>> Thanks
>> - Mohammad Nour
>> ----
>> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep
>> moving"
>> - Albert Einstein

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

View raw message