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 daddywri@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOFYJNZBnKG4_wsb6+-oZwiAE1B2XTUKC-1ouYZtrrR1WU7GOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOFYJNZBnKG4_wsb6+-oZwiAE1B2XTUKC-1ouYZtrrR1WU7GOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:47:48 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CALUFAGCwG7pAmDF-FNBJT9u4upTT02ZgYk4JvB9gY83VPkkiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
From: Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+1 on this.  Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.

Karl

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
> in one go, wouldn't it make more sense to gradually shift into a new
> way of doing things?
>
> You're proposing that podlings should start as full TLPs (with ASF
> members on board for mentoring) right from the beginning. Instead of
> changing the rules on all podlings at the same time, how about we try
> this out by giving interested podlings (or new proposals) this "direct
> to TLP" option?
>
> If that works out better than the current Incubator model, we can stop
> accepting more old-style podlings and just direct them into TLPs right
> from the beginning. Meanwhile any existing podlings should have a
> chance to graduate under the existing rules unless they rather choose
> to use this "direct to TLP" option.
>
> If as a result there's no more podlings in the Incubator, that's IMHO
> then the right time to shut down the IPMC, not before. And if it turns
> out that the proposed new model doesn't work as expected, we still
> have the current processes and structures to fall back to.
>
> The current Incubator model certainly has flaws, but it also does a
> lot of things right. There are good reasons for things like the extra
> publicity and release constraints placed on podlings, and the proposed
> model doesn't address how such restrictions would still work without
> the incubator. I note that many of the original constraints of the
> Incubator (no releases, etc.) turned out to be unnecessarily strict in
> practice, so it could well be that everything will work out smoothly
> also without the extra red tape. But small, reversible steps into such
> unknown territory are clearly preferable to major leaps of faith.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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