incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:40:57 GMT

> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in.  In
> particular, a glance to see whether there is any hygiene around licensing
> is an important question.  Many projects in the world at large have no good
> record of who write the code but still imagine that they can change the
> licensing.  Such projects are not suitable for Apache incubation since
> without a clean rewrite, they are not possible to Apache license.
> 
> Commercially developed code rarely has that sort of problem, but there may
> be other problems that a quick perusal would turn up or eliminate.

I believe one reason the openjdk GUI rendering is worse than the oracle one is, apparently,
that there's a  chunk of OSF/Motif code in there whose provenance isn't clear, until it was
released as LGPL, was closed source. That is: code sharing by cut-and-paste is always trouble

looking at the list of committers -it looks like a whole organisation is going to move to
doing OSS dev. That's a pretty big move.

1. The withdrawal of support for Groovy shows that pivotal have been ruthless in the past
about where to invest their OSS dev. It's a bit dangerous to list Groovy as a reference for
pivotal's OSS experience. It shows they've done it, but it shows that the commitment is not
indefinite funding (to be fair, no single org can guarantee that). Spring is the one to really
emphasis.

2. It will make it more of a barrier to getting other developers in; it'll take active effort
to bring them in, especially a transition to a process of decision making over the lists,
rather than in meetings. Again, a perennial problem that we all encounter -not an argument
against the proposal, just something that will take active effort.

I don't see it leaving incubation with more non-pivotal dev/contrib than the pivotal team,
just because of the numbers. The mentors/vote will have to consider how many external developers
constitutes "enough" to be an active, open dev community. Again, a permanent problem (*),
it just means here that it will be very skewed towards pivotal. I think that open-source discussion
and decision making should be a key metric here, rather than just looking at numbers.

otherwise: impressive proposal!

-Steve


(*) as a reminder, we in the slider-incubating project are hiring -along with every other
incubated project.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message