Meta-question: How many committers on a proposal are enough?

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:

> 
> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
> should evaluate a proposal?
> 
> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
> 
> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
> 
> 2. "Given the vast size of the codebase, is there any chance of
> building a large enough group to maintain and enhance it."
> 
> I fear that this involves the application of a crystal ball, but
> others may disagree.
> 
> 3. "How many people are detectable on the two existing projects, as
> this will teach us something about (2)"
> 
> No. It won't. Others on this thread of perfectly eloquently explained 
why.
> 
> So, please make some new threads with some new subjects if you want to
> argue my view here or any of the substantive questions.
> 

Done.

I think these are good questions.  But can you recommend a plausible way 
to answer your question #1 without at least estimating an answer for 
question #2? 

And I'd alter your question #3.  The better question, IMHO, is not "how 
many people are detectable".  I don't think anyone has seriously advocated 
that.  But "how many people are active" or "how many people are 
responsible for 90% of the contributions" or similar questions are 
indicative. 

Regards,

-Rob

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

Re: Meta-question: How many committers on a proposal are enough?

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

Here's the dilemma of 'question 2' as I see it.

Many podlings launch here with a very small group. If they do a good
job of marketing, if the podling is an itch that a lot of people want
to scratch, then more and more people show up, and all is well.

However, and it's a pretty big however, most podlings are starting
with a much smaller and more tractable quantity of code.

So I can see why people are diffident about approving the podling
without some forward visibility to critical mass.

At the same time, it's very hard to predict the situation. We know it
won't be 'what if we threw a party and no one came,' because we expect
IBM to show up. We don't know who else will turn up. The decisions
people have made over the last year or so were conditioned by the
particulars, and an Apache podling would be a rather significant
change to the particulars.






On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 AM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
>
>>
>> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
>> should evaluate a proposal?
>>
>> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
>>
>> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
>>
>> 2. "Given the vast size of the codebase, is there any chance of
>> building a large enough group to maintain and enhance it."
>>
>> I fear that this involves the application of a crystal ball, but
>> others may disagree.
>>
>> 3. "How many people are detectable on the two existing projects, as
>> this will teach us something about (2)"
>>
>> No. It won't. Others on this thread of perfectly eloquently explained
> why.
>>
>> So, please make some new threads with some new subjects if you want to
>> argue my view here or any of the substantive questions.
>>
>
> Done.
>
> I think these are good questions.  But can you recommend a plausible way
> to answer your question #1 without at least estimating an answer for
> question #2?
>
> And I'd alter your question #3.  The better question, IMHO, is not "how
> many people are detectable".  I don't think anyone has seriously advocated
> that.  But "how many people are active" or "how many people are
> responsible for 90% of the contributions" or similar questions are
> indicative.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

Re: Meta-question: How many committers on a proposal are enough?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 03/06/2011 13:35, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Benson Margulies<bi...@gmail.com>  wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
>
>>
>> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
>> should evaluate a proposal?
>>
>> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
>>
>> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
>>
>> 2. "Given the vast size of the codebase, is there any chance of
>> building a large enough group to maintain and enhance it."
>>
>> I fear that this involves the application of a crystal ball, but
>> others may disagree.
>>
>> 3. "How many people are detectable on the two existing projects, as
>> this will teach us something about (2)"
>>
>> No. It won't. Others on this thread of perfectly eloquently explained
> why.
>>
>> So, please make some new threads with some new subjects if you want to
>> argue my view here or any of the substantive questions.
>>
>
> Done.
>
> I think these are good questions.  But can you recommend a plausible way
> to answer your question #1 without at least estimating an answer for
> question #2?

I can answer that very simply.

The incubator does not expect a viable community on the way *in*, it 
only expects a viable community on the way *out*.

We will take a vote on whether to accept this proposal into the 
incubator. That vote, for the majority of people, will not be about 
vague unanswerable questions such as "will it graduate" it will be about 
"is there any *definite* reason to refuse entry to the incubator".

We want as many interested parties as possible on this proposal but 
there will be plenty of time in the incubator to welcome in others. If 
people don't come then the project will not graduate and the code is 
left in a better IP state than before - we can't lose. Simple as that.

Lets not waste time on the crystal ball gazing and arguments over whose 
crystal ball is more accurate. Lets instead focus on the important 
issues of of trademarks, IP management, infrastructure and initial 
committer list.

Ross

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