incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Websites at podling.apache.org
Date Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:43:15 GMT
I saw no response to this.  Can we move freemarker forward to not impede
them?
On Jan 7, 2016 07:44, "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

> So... I stumbled upon this as every time I send someone a link to
> freemarker, we get bounced all over the place (I've been a long time
> freemarker user).
>
> Where do things stand on this right now?  We let groovy keep its old URL.
> Is it a major problem that both URLs work? Is it a problem if only the old
> URL works? (btw, from what I remember, podling.a.o used to not work so I'm
> not sure what changed).
>
> FWIW, I saw tamaya listed on here. Tamaya has the incubator logo, so if
> you feel its not prominent could you explain why its not prominent?
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:27 PM Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> > <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > Attached a patch to:
>> > >> > 1. change from poding.i.a.o to poding.a.o
>> > >> > 2. Require the incubator logo and that it be prominent
>> >
>> > Thanks, Niall.
>> >
>> > For the time being, I'm -1 and going to play devil's advocate, but I'm
>> > willing
>> > to be persuaded.
>> >
>> > > https://paste.apache.org/nQTK
>> >
>> > OK, now the can of worms opens up...
>> >
>> > Compliance with the existing podling website branding requirements is
>> > poor[1].
>> >
>>
>> From your review 13 compliant, 13 have 1 Issue, 10 have >1 issue. So I
>> would disagree with the characterization of poor. You could say 72% one
>> issue or less - maybe thats good!!
>>
>>
>> > What good is adding another requirement for people to ignore[2]?
>> >
>>
>> If we want podlings to have incubator branding, then IMO a logo would have
>> far more effect than a URL.
>>
>> But I don't think non-compliance is a good argument against - should be
>> judged on branding criteria
>>
>>
>>
>> > If the website is at `podling.apache.org`, then why not the mailing
>> lists,
>> > too?
>> >
>> > Some podlings find labeling releases "incubating" inconvenient for both
>> > techncical and social reasons.  Why not dispense with that requirement
>> as
>> > well?
>> >
>> > Some podlings find the requirement to brand themselves as "incubating"
>> > inconvenient for marketing materials (including the podling website)
>> > because
>> > the public may interpret it as implying an immature codebase.
>> Arguably, it
>> > will help our podlings succeed if we simply stop differentiating them
>> from
>> > TLPs.  So why do we distinguish podlings from TLPs at all?
>> >
>>
>> Good points, I won't argue against them and the pTLP route imposes no such
>> branding requirements. All I'm saying is that *if* we're going to impose
>> *incubator* branding, then IMO the url is probably pretty ineffective and
>> not a big change and my proposal to make the incubator logo more prominent
>> would be better from a branding perspective. Having said that, I don't see
>> much point in the *incubator* branding requirement, was just trying to
>> work
>> within the existing policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Finally, to what extent does the Incubator have the responsibility to
>> > involve
>> > other entities at Apache (e.g. Marketing, Brand Management, Board) in
>> > decisions to weaken podling branding requirements?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I think the brand VP should give an opinion. Presumably there was
>> some
>> involvement when the policy was put in place.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > My perspective on all these questions is that a balance has been struck
>> > between inconvenience to the podling, the right of the the general
>> public
>> > to
>> > know that a podling is incubating (and thus may put out releases that
>> don't
>> > adhere to all aspects of Apache policy, may not have a mature community,
>> > etc.), and the reputatation of the Foundation.  And therefore, reducing
>> > inconvenience to the podling, while a worthy goal, is not sufficient
>> > justification on its own to disrupt that balance.
>> >
>> > Better to seek out other ways to reduce podling inconvenience -- e.g.
>> is it
>> > possible to carve out some exception for Geode templates?
>> >
>>
>> Good point. Lets see how this goes.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Marvin Humphrey
>> >
>> > [1] http://s.apache.org/3NU
>> > [2] This is a tangential point, but I'm not enthused about replacing a
>> >     faceless technical mechanism with a policy that requires
>> individuals to
>> >     serve as enforcers.  I think that injects a negative dynamic into
>> the
>> >     community.
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>

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