incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:10:17 GMT
>> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
>> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in.  In

To be clear, there were conversations with Jim (as VP Legal) prior to
this submission.  The ASF wouldn't accept the software grant until the
Incubator approved the proposal.  Pivotal wouldn't release it as ALv2
until the ASF accepted the grant.

It's a chicken-and-egg problem - seeing the code through the
click-through evaluation license is the least bad scenario that drives
this proposal forward.

As a mentor unaffiliated with Pivotal, I'm not worried about the
provenance checks - Pivotal is ready to execute the software grant and
release it as ALv2.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Steve Loughran <> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it is.  I'm confident in my conversations with the Pivotal team
that they fully understand what will be asked of them.  However, as a
mentor, the proof will be in the pudding and will be demonstrated
through the Incubation process...or not.

> 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.

Companies are always free to re-evaluate where they spend their time
and resources.  I actually view the experience with Groovy as a
positive thing in the macro sense.  The point of submitting Geode to
the ASF is to ensure the longevity of the project and community - the
lesson from Groovy is to ensure it is in appropriate foundation that
will care for it.

> 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.

This is why we have an Incubator.  =)

> 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.

Fully agreed for exit criteria, but let's get it in first!  -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message