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 5189FE894 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95744 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2013 22:58:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95550 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2013 22:58:55 -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 95542 invoked by uid 99); 26 Feb 2013 22:58:55 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:58:55 +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 bimargulies@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.53] (HELO mail-bk0-f53.google.com) (209.85.214.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:58:48 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j10so2174815bkw.12 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:58:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=147gcL2vWiAWOTb5Vk9RUSKe52y4bXltD0qV/GgVQ0I=; b=ec/6QgwvLLapjevwMnNX78c1CRt3Ue06BxEQuAbRZ+3nQxCXiDxXTsc0+FGECDpCEP 11NizM7ML8ss8kcZ9BXnmSJhO8WM4Gz4avSDdkKD6v8xFmI/nQ7Yfr+ThT61ik/x1vcw ZpzR8zutV+k7iB57z23PMQ/JIKLfd3R/OMkOpeSTWAbAjV4aL0Qza9EBQCR+agT5e9LO N9xm42Obzmj7zptEpVL4MbzO1+U9AYUPcZB5dBALgnMjRu+oZ07H0mssUe9ZNiJ6OC89 mjMH4xrDxVzz/Di/jmyOG1sJRrQeKCmAPhw6PPLWx9UzpNVrsAFcu4BOGVNAewVW7kGX J60g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.204.149.138 with SMTP id t10mr7299903bkv.122.1361919508293; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:58:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.35.199 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:58:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:58:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: No more existing-TLP graduations (was: [PROPOSAL] Curator for the Apache Incubator) From: Benson Margulies To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hi Benson, > > > On 2/26/13 2:17 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Greg Stein 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? > >> >>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