incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:15:22 GMT
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:38PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.07.2015 10:56, jan i wrote:
> > On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut
> >> that
> >>> away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
> >> IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing poddlings on how to make
> >> good releases. Do we want to get rid of that?
> >>
> > No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
> > mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
> >
> > Maybe we can find some middle ground.
> > - Mentors "run" the podlings, can accept releases etc.
> > - Mentors decide when a podlng can graduate (maybe with some form of, needs
> > to accepted by all mentors of the project)
> > - Any release must be announced (not voted) on general@, so that people
> > like you have a chance of controlling it just like today.
> >
> > I think this would make incubator a lot more efficient, reduce our inboxes,
> > and give us spare time to concentrate on other things.
> 
> I like this proposal very much. One of the constant frustrations in the
> podlings I'd mentored was the delay between release bits being ready and
> the IPMC getting around to vote. It's now a lot better than it was a
> couple years ago, when in some instances it took a month or more ...
> 
> Concretely: I think it's perfectly OK to review podling releases after
> the fact. The incubation disclaimer tells users clearly enough that they
> should be extra careful when using releases from incubating projects.
> 
> The other frustration is of course evident in the Ignite graduation
> discussion.
> 
> The only downside of this proposal is that it assumes that every podling
> has at least three active (!) mentors. That doesn't always happen; and
> currently we expect the podling to chase down inactive mentors or find
> new ones. If we adopt Jan's proposal, I'd expect the IPMC to take a more
> active role in finding mentors for podlings.
> 
> Other than that, big +1.

I like the idea of the post factum release reviews. It doesn't mean that IPMC
at large aren't welcome to jump in and help with the podling release voting.
Perhaps a sane and courteous thing would be to Cc: general@ on the podling
[VOTE] thread? But +1 even as it stands right now.


One of the moot points that has came up a few times recently about the
diversity clause in the graduation guidelines. Namely:

    "A major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
    meritocratic community. Time has demonstrated that these kinds of
    communities are more robust and productive than more closed ones."

The semantic of "diverse" isn't clear and is being interpreted in different
ways. I'd like to propose to change the above paragraph to

    "A major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and
    meritocratic community. Time has demonstrated that these kinds of
    communities are more robust and productive than more closed ones."

to avoid possible confusing interpretations in the future.

Regards,
  Cos

Mime
View raw message