Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABD8fLVDFt6wykePDTatSg-53Q7+AA752dCG+mU2pPg6Y0F0nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABD8fLU=Dnvp63FYT5p9YjFqmPzQGt5izUw4E27=3o7nWAEEsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADY20s5kZ8kcA2u9ujuHFP4j72p8kcZRd+j=o3DDoHzyofu6HA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwFCa2Cftc3es0oCQ7pMBcjRF6DEB1cqT0hfsjM-3GJOEzgXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJnb2gUMLpLKOhWo6k5E-RVroncrsq88tOS88uhTpvenZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151118003713.GI4878@tpx>
	<CADY20s68cZz_uQb9o4EfoF38SxXudLHVJViRt=U17_pkxaCVsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151118015706.GK4878@tpx>
	<CADY20s5mjCUta+HrF+wwV-c3JJPuCw9WKHD_4-5FGeuLXvMD9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<564C1F58.6040404@gmail.com>
	<CADY20s4=-QK3Z6kAcRkymjEjVNytX9GFK71M0cU4WJ_7ZVda1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151122201841.GH4878@tpx>
	<CADY20s7HELZsC82AiEuM83VTWrd81ZgjU_KeBumQcCARr=Cigg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPh_B=YMe0uhUg6m2z11i_5y0Nb9KOMrv877u94=tpbRDpP_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABD8fLXymYwFdV5GjypP8phWD9y2puyW_kiTZTUGbg+ySmNegw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8FaPOhE8hrDZsWusfhHmFUJaYJdhKPepR8t1Mz52gtYvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABD8fLVDFt6wykePDTatSg-53Q7+AA752dCG+mU2pPg6Y0F0nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 01:48:37 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAPmHmDR=iA3+qZbPmcR8-Cd=HKj-oU72HPYjMjKhTuRHTkVYww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)
From: Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
To: general-incubator <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a9f0458a9a305253f8a27

--001a113a9f0458a9a305253f8a27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nobody is forcing anything.
> > >
> > > Personally, I am saying RTC is destructive, and am willing to give
> every
> > > podling that message.
> >
> > If it is truly destructive, SHOULDN'T you/we be trying to force
> > something?  And if not, doesn't that mean that it isn't really all
> > that destructive?
> >
>
> I believe that I represent a minority position, so no... I'm not going to
> suggest changes. I wish to forestall more projects falling into the RTC
> trap, but (at the moment) don't believe that it makes sense to attempt to
> apply mandates against RTC upon existing communities.
>
>
> >  As a Director, would you consider stop approving reports from ASF
> > projects that operate under a RTC model?  If not, aren't you sending a
> > mixed message?
> >
>
> I have thought about this, yes. Maybe add a question to the proposal
> template, on what form they're thinking about (and where I could debate the
> proposal against RTC). And maybe debate podlings who want to graduate under
> RTC.
>

I think this is too late - if you want to debate it, then it needs to be
when projects enter incubation. By the time they're ready to graduate then
(presumably) things are already going well and theres less impetus to
change.

Niall


> But as a Director, if the community is producing releases, then I find it
> difficult to point to RTC as a problem for that community. It is an
> unprovable position: there is no way to state their community could be
> better off under CTR.
>
>
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > P.S.  To be clear: I am not a fan of RTC when applied to release.next
> > branches.
>
>
> I'd appreciate your explanation of this, as "most" CTR communities apply
> RTC to a branch as they prepare a release. What disturbs you about this
> approach?
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

--001a113a9f0458a9a305253f8a27--