incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Starting from the other end
Date Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:12:09 GMT
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> 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.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message