incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Podlings and the ASF maturity model (was: Reform of Incubator...)
Date Thu, 06 Aug 2015 06:46:29 GMT
Of course there are...

CD40 - podlings may not have this prior to coming ASF, hence the full
history might not be available.

RE40 - interesting clause in itself, both the "can be" and the caveat in it
"no guarantee". IMHO, shouldn't be there at all.

QU20 - Highly subjective as noted in footnote 7, and every project would
need to examine a reasonable level of security awareness and response
strategy, and often there will be varying opinions on what is appropriate.

QU40 - That is mostly a function of how popular a project is, and how the
project's code is intended to be used.

QU50 - How do you "check list"-ticking the "strive to" qualifier?

CO70 - another "strive to"...

CS50 - a funny one, actually two... Mailing lists are not spelled out, and
in theory YouTube videos and response videos could serve as "asynchronous
channel". Also, it doesn't mention that such channel needs to be provided
by ASF infrastructure.

IN10/IN20 - I claim that many projects would fail if all companies decided
to pull their man-power support away. I happen to think it is relatively
good, as that provides use-cases and requirements, but the agendas are
there under the surface, and it should be recognized as a fact, rather than
pretending it isn't.



So, the maturity model shouldn't be a set of gating criteria, but that the
podling should self-assess its position and to what degree, as well as how,
each point is handled. Yes, many of the points are non-negotiable, but
don't claim that all are...
And if it is gating criteria for becoming a TLP, then likewise it should be
a reversed gating criteria for going to Attic.

Cheers
Niclas

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> >> ...I understand the maturity model to be something to aspire to and
> that Apache Projects
> >> will always be working toward it.  I mean TLPs, not podlings, although
> podlings should be
> >> aware of it and also aspire to it...
> >
> > I don't see why podlings should be different here, once they are about
> > to graduate.
> >
> > Why can't we define our incubation process as a way for podlings to
> > learn to operate according to that maturity model [1]?
> >
> > This would allow us to use the maturity model [1] as a checklist for
> > graduating podlings - do you see anything in there that shouldn't be
> > required from a podling that's about to graduate?
>
> I see it as a useful checklist that may uncover interesting issues within
> the graduating podling. I don't see anything in there that would qualify
> as an unambiguous gating criteria.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message