incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: No more existing-TLP graduations (was: [PROPOSAL] Curator for the Apache Incubator)
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:18:09 GMT

On Feb 26, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> Hi Benson,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>>> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> ...I'd like to suggest two changes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) Incubation is for new TLPs only. Turn off the "graduate-into-TLP"
>>>>>> option.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2) Move the "short form" IP clearance to Legal Affairs, to clarify
that
>>>>>> we're only talking IP, rather than other concerns....
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 to both, assuming Legal Affairs accepts 2)
>>>> 
>>>> Guys, this was my point a few weeks ago, and the question I posed to
>>>> the board. Did the board discuss it at the meeting, or is that part of
>>>> the board meeting happening here?
>>> 
>>> And it was my point during the whole HCatalog thing too. And Greg's when
>>> it was
>>> discussed during the board meeting. So yes, I think that's what we're
>>> discussing
>>> here.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think that there are several hairs worth splitting here.
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Merging into a TLP is a possible outcome for a podling, even when
>>>> the initial intention is to graduate independently. Even if we
>>>> eliminate this as a starting intention, we should clarify how we
>>>> expect this to happen. My prior email suggested a very low-overhead
>>>> view of such events.
>>> 
>>> It's my intention that that *should not be a possible outcome for a
>>> podling*.
>>> And just because we never said it explicitly (or maybe we did), that
>>> doesn't
>>> mean it was universally accepted either. You can gauge this by pure
>>> numbers of
>>> how many podlings have went this route (comparatively few).
>> 
>> 
>> Chris, I am now confused. If a podling bogs down, and then finds that
>> there is a congenial home for the code in an existing project, what's
>> your desire? My suggestion that the existing project just adopt them
>> with no formal graduation? Something else?
> 
> 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.

(2) Receiving PMC votes to accept IP - if not cleared then it accepts that responsibility.

(3) Receiving PMC votes on each podling Committer and PMC separately (or in a group if no
objections.)

(4) IPMC says thanks!

(5) Podling is now a product within a TLP.

Regards,
Dave

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2. If an existing TLP wants to incorporate an existing non-Apache
>>>> community, the incubator _might_ might serve a useful role. Or, not.
>>>> I'm also perfectly happy to tell that TLP to make a branch and grant
>>>> some commit access and vote status as appropriate as things proceed,
>>>> which is how I'd restate your views.
>>> 
>>> Right, not sure the views need restating. I think they've been stated
>>> fairly clearly
>>> so far.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3. We do have a group of people with some minimal, observed,
>>>> willingness to pay some attention to IP clearance. Legal affairs,
>>>> well, is more of a talking-shop. So I'd expect Sam to want some
>>>> helpers before he'd accept this.
>>> 
>>> How about we start letting people talk for themselves? I sense an
>>> inclination at least
>>> in this email to not do that :)
>> 
>> Sorry. Point taken.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message