incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: No more existing-TLP graduations (was: [PROPOSAL] Curator for the Apache Incubator)
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:44:27 GMT

On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" <> wrote:
>>> This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times,
>>> projects aim for being very successful and have their own healthy
>>> community, but that is not always the outcome, and exiting Incubator
>>> as an adopted project should be still be a possibility.
>> I don't think we should exclude incubating projects from being
>> incorporated into other projects. It may be preferred to the attic or
>> github should a community fail to thrive. The incubator does not need to
>> be TLP or fail.
>> Perhaps the assimilation of an incubating podling to another PMC should
>> not be called graduation. Maybe it should be handled piece by piece.
>> (1) PPMC votes to approach a PMC with Mentor / IPMC approval like for a
>> release.
> Please name me a specific example scenario in which #1 has happened at the
> ASF without pre stated intent to join that TLP.

I'll give you a possible - If ODFToolkit fails to have a large enough community then two possible
TLPs might be willing to assimilate the community - either OpenOffice or POI.

It was specifically intended not to be part of OpenOffice, and two of the podling mentors
are POI PMC members.

> I would be very surprised to see it happen b/c it would imply graduation
> into an existing TLP wasn't premeditated.

Premeditated by the whole of the Initial Committers? No. A thought by one or two people as
a "Plan B"? Yes. A prod to the podling, yes.

Each case differs. I can agree that we do not want to encourage new podlings to come in with
Plan A to be graduating into an existing TLP, but I don't think we should exclude a future
case should it be strong enough to convince the IPMC.

Put another way, we should not decide all policy based only on the latest worst case - Hive/HCatalog.


> That's the whole point of the "sponsoring PMC" portion of the Incubator
> proposal, from the beginning, to declare
> the intent to graduate into a existing TLP - otherwise that section
> wouldn't be needed and the answer would always
> be Incubator PMC. For the record, since the whole umbrella project thing,
> most of the sponsoring (I can name perhaps 1-5)
> incoming Incubator podlings are all Incubator PMC sponsored, for intent to
> graduate to TLP.
> On the graduating into existing TLP end, I don't think that makes sense -
> apparently at least 2 other people don't either judging by +1s and words.
> I would like to fix that. But, I don't think I've ever seen #1 where they
> haven't already declared that their intent from the beginning.
>> (2) Receiving PMC votes to accept IP - if not cleared then it accepts
>> that responsibility.
> If PMCs can accept the type of "podling sized" IP contribution then I
> think that the Incubator is a pointless committee.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message