From general-return-38496-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Nov 20 11:30:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8E5CDBB1 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:30:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 44004 invoked by uid 500); 20 Nov 2012 11:30:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 43733 invoked by uid 500); 20 Nov 2012 11:30:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 43691 invoked by uid 99); 20 Nov 2012 11:30:03 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:30:03 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.47] (HELO mail-la0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:29:55 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id u2so4233448lag.6 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:29:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=opendirective.com; s=opendirective; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=XnCxePWai0SEIE1kFyhGgdMQwUF+fJ9+qBhESrQ3pYk=; b=Mj+89FZHwMf1/35A2SnlfzI41eUb3WOqdZ7S5IkJxIHL0yvCLp3eL4QeNc7CfPqSbU HNHGVv0DMCly/0pYn0vfO8yesaz+75FexwuKgWd8xPyrQHN7tQdTdlrjnXA0OeNiFfwn Y8e/CkfAcDsGcpEuyHk7zXyTuhpDiXCnBh1Cw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=XnCxePWai0SEIE1kFyhGgdMQwUF+fJ9+qBhESrQ3pYk=; b=FZcjw987lOAqrMcy7fwtKmiiz475eDq8pIZ42vBXK1ohkvb4ivpjGy/JJ5AP5LmKlS ysO01V9f04xk/AI+3wMmnD2fbAZhVMz0/2Di1R5zd1YMsnyRxHzcyfwOdBkgUpjI0sav 24AL/g+K+bIDMYrHjkO9W3u7iTgmAmasuzfjBRKdObUrx/WNs2VCUUVRdzUmv9xho9zo uc9kg4b52SF7AM5t1y+xILIGG2C6BkSiJi/MhoP7l5khZIpk77ErbaX4fKQBnQ6n6MMz kD2+nLmedcihsFr2v74I5BSzRn20iphUtrY6c1hfjZ8IpN2AGh77R1p1QAeQK4H8B3nj Sdlg== Received: by 10.152.144.164 with SMTP id sn4mr8919688lab.57.1353410974849; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:29:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.16.232 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:28:54 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [86.156.147.31] From: Ross Gardler Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:28:54 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Sub-projects - when are they acceptable? (was Re: [VOTE] Graduate Nuvem as a sub-project under Apache Tuscany) To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmwfXjbHpKhyzrGJVJ7fVD93bI2QNurwcTh5Hy5+eCfYiGczy86zZU5MCN7pWDsHrtPmeJg X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 20 November 2012 11:18, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Luciano Resende wrote: >>> ...Nuvem has a great synergy with Apache Tuscany, and after >>> discussion between the two projects, we are seeking IPMC approval to allow >>> graduation of Apache Nuvem as a sub-project under Apache Tuscany.... >> >> Can you clarify what this means? Do all members of the Nuvem PPMC >> become Tuscany PMC members? > > Bertrand, this is a great opportunity to clarify the board's attitude > toward 'subprojects'. Ever since the campaign to dismantle umbrellas, > I've been confused about what structures the board would find > reasonable. I don't speak for the board, but my opinion is that if a sub-project is OK as long as it is actively managed by the same PMC as the parent project. Where I start to get worried is when a sub-project takes on a life of its own and significant portions of the parent PMC are not interested in the sub-project and thus fail to provide appropriate oversight. The more sub-projects there are in a project the more likely this is to happen. I'm interested to hear if this is also the opinion of others and thus I've changed the subject. In terms of Nuvem I'm interested in the answer to Bertrands question. Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org