incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: Starting from the other end
Date Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:25:04 GMT
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <>
>> wrote:
>>> I think I'm with Sam. I think these are related. Or to be more explicit:
>>> the way a project joins a foundation (regardless of what path it takes)
>>> is via a board passing a resolution.
>>> Perhaps defining exact criteria that the board uses to evaluate such
>>> resolutions would be useful.
>> Perhaps it would be.  My focus right now is making sure that the Incubator
>> works well.
>> So far, direct to top-level is an exceptional case handled by people who
>> need neither Incubator nor documentation.
>> And Incubator alternatives don't exist yet and wouldn't be the Incubator
>> even if they did.
>> So the document we have here is about the Incubator as it is.
> And that is precisely why I have held back on your invitation that I
> edit the document.
> From a board evaluation perspective, I can tell you that proposals,
> mentors, and the like are not required.  Suggesting that these steps
> are optional would be a drastic edit to the current document.
> What is required is some sort of testimonial from a diverse set of
> people that we trust attesting to essentially what the contents of the
> Maturity Model covers.  The only thing that I see outright missing
> from that model is the equivalent of a podling name search.
> The path I took with Whimsy was to produce an Incubator Proposal and a
> Podling Name search.  Based on the feedback I received, I proposed
> that it go direct to TLP.  As the incubator was a part of the process,
> this was done with essentially no friction.
> The place I would suggest that we start is from those pieces: the
> Maturity Model, the definition of an Incubator Proposal, and a Podling
> name search.  The thought is that these could be merged into a way to
> evaluate potential projects (some have mentioned using this as a way
> of measuring current projects, but I'm less interested in this and
> feel that there there would be differences -- for example, we evaluate
> current projects on the ability to demonstrate that there are three
> active PMC members).
> Based on the evaluation, there may be different paths, ranging from
> direct to TLP to simple IP clearance to full blown proposal and
> seeking of mentors.  In fact, there may even be more variation.

Huge +1 to the above. Very well said and is exactly how I now start
thing about the problem myself: Incubator is what's needed when
there are gaps in straight to TLP. Lets identify what those gaps
could be, how they can be assessed and then figure out how
Incubator can help to bridge them so that 'Graduation' becomes
a simple act of saying -- the gaps we've identified are not longer
a problem.


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

View raw message