incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject RE: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation
Date Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:16:06 GMT
Absolutely should be voluntary. We don't need more red tape. We need better guidance.

The model is good guidance. Individual volunteers should evaluate from their own perspective
and work towards improving areas they feel attached to.

That is, someone in the project from day one will not have the same view as someone new to
the community. The model is qualitative not quantative and thus open to interpretation. I'd
hate for us to be too formal in its application, ir will only lead to more debate over what
is/is not best practice.

Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Bertrand Delacretaz<>
Sent: ‎10/‎19/‎2015 1:15 AM
To: Incubator General<>
Subject: Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <> wrote:
> ...that might just be me...

I agree that each of our projects regularly evaluating their state
against the maturity model would be useful. We can either make that a
requirement (like once a year as part of the board reporting) or make
that an optional "quality label" that projects can display on their
website, like a regularly updated version of what we're doing for the
Groovy podling at [1].

I prefer the latter, a voluntary public report that can be used by the
project's community as well as the board as a tool for evaluating the
project's health but without imposing more process on our projects.

(and as others have said this would be a more a discussion for comdev,
it's not incubator-specific)



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

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