Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1426243857.17815.92.camel@winder.org.uk>
References: 
 <CA+ULb+tHEc5N9vDvu526Jmb=te4F3yCwCWWJxxMC07EAz_35wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK2iWdRvFfFOJzBjOCp=xhy4qDayzbJ1TTB4bLdGxTDcLT_eKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJnAr9m4ii+L_eBapDSV-eqhgfoBwM3F=jMxN3BM6s8uhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<550166FC.3000302@gmx.org>
	<CAF8HOZK0kWguUoLpqt9qoftUQtc5yv9LO5F8Uqa5tJ3k=1b-MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJn88M2GZKVjCUPwdnnE+cp+kczt9HGEiCJPPrdXPjiFcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1061E535-8C81-410C-B221-B3F9F7CA6D2A@apache.org>
	<5501C7C3.2060501@gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJmiSRfectDBqn0PvszaOk=RmWs0tkQhenwBOr-YzWqeCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1426243857.17815.92.camel@winder.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:20:24 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CA+nPnMy05_0GW9vhbkt8X8YXtMrrm_3rkpsOuNtLUvmy29qZQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal
From: Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>, Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au>,
	pascalschumacher <pascalschumacher@gmx.net>,
 Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@gmail.com>,
	=?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric_Champeau?= <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>,
	Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149c4ced173c3051129af47

--089e0149c4ced173c3051129af47
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 13 March 2015 at 10:50, Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote:

> I have been reading this thread via GMane with some worry. I have now
> joined the email list and this post is fortuitous in that it allows me
> to make some of the points I wish to contribute.
>
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 08:55 +0100, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:07 PM, C=C3=A9dric Champeau
> > <cedric.champeau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...I see no point in wanting to reach a target number of
> > > committers. Having a large number of quality contributions, more
> > > contributors is IMHO more important than people having write access t=
o
> the
> > > repo....
> >
> > Once again, there's no set number that you have to reach to graduate -
> > it is not about numbers.
>
> I think something has gone very wrong with this point about committer
> count, see below=E2=80=A6
> >
>

I will clarify my comments on committer count.

I am fine with the initial committer count being the current "core" team.
That makes perfect sense.

I do think that to exit incubation, the project needs to demonstrate that
it can grow. This is because there will always be attrition, and if a
project cannot grow to counter-balance the attrition rate then at some
point it will loose critical mass and be cast off into the attic.

What is the easiest way to demonstrate that the project can grow? The
easiest way is to add new committers and PMC members... this project has a
long history of contributors outside of the core group that could be mined
for potential new committers during incubation... if some of those people
can be encouraged to join as a committer then that is by far and above the
easiest demonstration of ability to grow

Is that the only way? Nope, you could have a watch-list of potential
committers and be tracking their progress against whatever bar you have
set, making sure that they demonstrate whatever qualities you deem as
necessary... if you go that route you will have to work harder to prove
that you have the ability to grow...

So, I do not think that Groovy needs to have 5+X committers in order to
exit the incubator. I think that Groovy needs to have demonstrated the
ability to grow its committer and PMC community *however* the Groovy
project chooses to demonstrate its ability to grow (and actual growth is
just the easiest demonstration... you cannot argue with facts)

-Stephen

--089e0149c4ced173c3051129af47--