incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Date Sun, 08 Mar 2015 13:02:11 GMT
My feeling is that the incubator incubates communities and their
products.

With the pTLP plan, the communities don't need incubating in the same
way - they have sufficient maturity to self-manage. That is, to my mind,
the essence of the proposal. In which case, it is the product that needs
incubation, and thus an incubation annotation.

Now, I would argue that *any* project can bring in code to form a
product that isn't ready yet, and that needs to follow the steps
described for a pTLP. That is, it is a product that is market
provisional, not the community or project.

Could, for example, a normal TLP produce an incubated or provisional
product?

Upayavira 

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, at 03:00 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> On 3/4/15 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org
> > <mailto:cutting@apache.org>> wrote:
> 
> >     On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org
> >     <mailto:rvs@apache.org>> wrote:
> ...
> >     As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved in a
> >     pTLP's "graduation".  As far as I'm concerned, any "provisional"
> >     status is self-imposed by the PMC and can be removed at its pleasure.
> >     From the board's perspective it's either an ASF project or it's not,
> >     there's not a useful middle ground.  As a project it needs to provide
> >     reports, release according to accepted standards, operate openly, etc.
> >     It may be a young project, with a PMC dominated by old-timers who
> >     aren't responsible for much of the contribution, but I don't see why
> >     that requires a new formal status any more than we need a formal
> >     status for old, slow-moving projects that rarely release.
> > 
> >     Put directly, what does a pTLP's "graduation" change from the board's
> >     perspective?  How should it change the way we review the project's
> >     reports, etc.?  In short, why should we care about this label?  If a
> >     PMC wishes to call itself "blue" that's fine too, but we don't need a
> >     resolution when it decides to call itself "purple".
> > 
> > 
> > What's your view of 'incubation disclaimers'? The above paragraph makes
> > most sense to me if there are none for pTLPs.
> 
> The bigger question is: what does "pTLP" mean to the rest of the world?
> 
> Incubation disclaimers are there to inform the rest of the world that
> the community working there, and the software it produces, are not (yet)
> true Apache projects.  That is, we want end users to understand that
> there may be different expectations of project behavior and software
> product quality or availability for Incubator podlings than the world
> has for full Apache projects.
> 
> How are we clearly describing to end users what differences they might
> expect between the operations and functionality of pTLPs versus Apache
> projects (i.e. formal TLPs)?  And who, specifically, decides when the
> pTLP becomes a TLP?
> 
> While it's important to ensure that we're being clear within our
> communities about how we operate and improve, in this case it's also
> really important that we make it clear to the rest of the world what a
> pTLP is.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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