incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Starting from the other end
Date Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:14:56 GMT
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <>
> wrote:
>> 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
> There is one thing the Incubator cannot solve: ASF Members on the
> direct-to-TLP PMC. That has been the primary metric the Board used for
> those Resolutions (Zest and Serf). There are a few other direct-to-TLP
> occurrences which was only about moving code/communities around within the
> Foundation (STeVe, Whimsy, ORC, etc, lately, and when we blew up umbrellas
> (eg. Jakarta, XML, Hadoop)).

I agree about the metric, but believe it can be generalized.  Here is
how I put it:

"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."

I see having a large number of ASF Members as being an example where
we get that input first hand.  But I wouldn't go so far as to say that
a large number of ASF Members being direct participants is an absolute
and non-negotiable requirement for direct to TLP.  In fact, some of
the blown up umbrellas may be counter examples.

> So... I would not look at the Incubator as "get the podling community to
> look like a candidate for direct-to-TLP", as it really can't do that.
> The ultimate question, I believe, is: "does the code/community operate
> according to Foundation principles?"


> Cheers,
> -g

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message