Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALhtWkczir1C8P_PoCY+gOb=s_u_jGMsHAn5VfkHT=xLdrqqAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALhtWkfraD-BY56tJOvYvSxmyTogXBzVbJFkLKcUD96BNnjv-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKTa1mj9aVneTFEPe=XmtW4-1GrHVEEX2SYZKeo96eLvxgRwhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALhtWke=pafHZQ4Az9etqNrMchWRg7_msBnepTCUG5wfpBucwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1326058969.52445.YahooMailNeo@web27805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<CALhtWkfuBqn1N3WtYBk=Kc=1aP3kM5nsztjRf8DY9CzEqJnoZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8EwLWnOSbJPhJG_xb3NgMXks9Rrg+MPi8G-+7dT1u3N7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALhtWkczir1C8P_PoCY+gOb=s_u_jGMsHAn5VfkHT=xLdrqqAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:10:21 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAFG6u8GkjygOwL2CgaxJtZNL0CqmdgZQCFPM5dKqfTAUn1ijSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
> I started this separate thread because I view this situation as
> distinctive from the problem you are referring to here. I take that
> situation just as seriously as you do, I think. If you'd prefer that I
> drop this (less urgent) problem until that one is under control. I'm
> happy to do so.

It is fair enough statement that not all of us need to work on what I
happen to think is most urgent.  This statement is true even if we
might happen to agree on the relative priorities.

I will merely point out that your suggestion is at least mildly at
cross purposes to the issue that I want addressed.  One of my concerns
is that there are a number of podlings that are comfortably nestled in
with no need to graduate.  However, that is by no means my biggest
concern, which is the silent attrition rate of mentors.  In the case
of Isis, I am fully prepared to accept that that podling has at least
one active mentor.

> No, I'm not asking for a blank check. I'm asking you and the other
> more experienced people if you think that the idea of treating
> Isis-like podlings differently from other podlings by giving them more
> autonomy and less oversight makes any sense to you. If you all say,
> 'no, we don't want to change anything,' I'll drop it. If you say 'hmm,
> let's talk details,' then I'll attempt to flesh out details. However,
> since your bottom line is 'make a more concrete proposal,' then I
> will, but I will wait a bit to see if this thread attracts any other
> thoughts about the overall concept first.

You previously mentioned that there might be incubator requirements
that are burdensome on mentors.  Identifying those and ways to address
them are things that I could definitely support.

Looking specifically at Isis, the last report[1] to the board contained:

    Top 3 Issues to address in move towards graduation

    * More blogging/publicity from existing community...
    * More users of the framework...
    * More committers to the framework

The latter might be a concern.  The first two however are not direct
concerns.  At most, they are indirect: i.e., ways to attract
committers.  Looking at the incubator page[2], I see more than three
committers, and in fact four of them are ASF members.  If at least one
of these ASF members intends is willing to continue on the PMC, and
the lack of committers were the only issue, then I would be
comfortable with this podling graduating.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2011/board_minutes_2011_10_26.txt
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/isis.html

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