You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2003/03/12 22:02:20 UTC
Re: Dum Question
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:57:04AM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> To Accept a project:
>
> 1. Another PMC must sign off on it but can't vote a project in. (What
> does that mean exactly? A head nod?)
> 2. The Incubator PMC must then vote to accept the project.
I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
project or not. Some other ASF PMC says "we want this project to migrate
into the ASF" [after whatever vote] and sends the project to the Incubator.
The Incubator then processes it. Upon completion, the new project is part of
the original PMC.
There is the possibility that PMCs will overburden the Incubator with
incoming projects. Fine... the incubator just slows down on its processing.
But the original PMC that *did* the loading will then want to lend a hand.
The Incubator PMC *does* vote on the release of a project -- has the project
met the required steps/guides/"paperwork".
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 12/03/2003 22.02:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
>>project or not.
...
> so a project can enter either because it was sponsored by an
> existing asf project that commits to provide a home for it on
> emergence, or by applying out of the blue. in the former case,
> the incubator probably doesn't get to vote on acceptance, only
> on emergence. in the latter case, however, the incubator *does*
> get to decide. part of the decision is to make existing projects
> aware of the application in case any of them want to become a
> sponsor. if none do, then the incubator gets to decide whether
> the project would be an asset to the asf, and, if so, the exit
> path will be to a new top-level project.
>
> im[h?]o.
MO as well, AFAIK.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Dum Question
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>For totally new projects with no destination? Then I honestly have no idea
>how to provide the "training" for those people. I don't believe the
>Incubator can do it, but I'm also not going to even try to obstruct others
>who feel it is (I'd just hope people provide due consideration to whether
>the Incubator is the right approach). i.e. within my time constraints, I'd
>happily participate in verifying that logistical requirements have been met,
>but "training" is too amorphous for me to deal with properly [in this
>context].
>
>
If the incubator actually started providing logicial support 80% of my
rant would be rendered irrelvant.
Thanks,
-Andy
>Cheers,
>-g
>
>
>
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:02:59PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>...
> i believe you are mistaken. that model only permits new adoptions
> into existing projects -- which is most definitely not the sole
> scenario. iirc, that is *one* scenario -- but the incubator has
> the task of fielding requests from external projects that want to
> become part of apache.
Ah. Excllent point, which I hadn't considered. I completely agree.
The point which I've made in the past, but would like to reiterate is that I
see the Incubator as a logistics manager for incoming projects. Not as a
training ground. The future TLP is the training ground simply on the basis
that it will be providing oversight to the incoming codebase.
For totally new projects with no destination? Then I honestly have no idea
how to provide the "training" for those people. I don't believe the
Incubator can do it, but I'm also not going to even try to obstruct others
who feel it is (I'd just hope people provide due consideration to whether
the Incubator is the right approach). i.e. within my time constraints, I'd
happily participate in verifying that logistical requirements have been met,
but "training" is too amorphous for me to deal with properly [in this
context].
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote, On 13/03/2003 17.01:
...
> If we lack the resources to do an adequate job,
> we should respectfully decline rather than try to "make do" and
> do a half-arsed job.
I think this is something that really has to be remembered.
Probably we should forget that help from other non-incubators can do
work for us, at least not all.
For subprojects that have strong sponsors, we still need to make
assessments here based on the checklist (that will also get better over
time), and have one of us take 'shepherd' role for the project.
For those that will want to become TLPs, it will be much harder, and
your comment strikes the point.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
At 4:02 PM -0500 3/12/03, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>so a project can enter either because it was sponsored by an
>existing asf project that commits to provide a home for it on
>emergence, or by applying out of the blue. in the former case,
>the incubator probably doesn't get to vote on acceptance, only
>on emergence. in the latter case, however, the incubator *does*
>get to decide. part of the decision is to make existing projects
>aware of the application in case any of them want to become a
>sponsor. if none do, then the incubator gets to decide whether
>the project would be an asset to the asf, and, if so, the exit
>path will be to a new top-level project.
>
The latter case will, by design, require much more involvement
from the Incubator than the former, and any acceptance should keep
that in mind. If we lack the resources to do an adequate job,
we should respectfully decline rather than try to "make do" and
do a half-arsed job.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
> project or not. Some other ASF PMC says "we want this project to migrate
> into the ASF" [after whatever vote] and sends the project to the Incubator.
> The Incubator then processes it. Upon completion, the new project is part of
> the original PMC.
i believe you are mistaken. that model only permits new adoptions
into existing projects -- which is most definitely not the sole
scenario. iirc, that is *one* scenario -- but the incubator has
the task of fielding requests from external projects that want to
become part of apache.
so a project can enter either because it was sponsored by an
existing asf project that commits to provide a home for it on
emergence, or by applying out of the blue. in the former case,
the incubator probably doesn't get to vote on acceptance, only
on emergence. in the latter case, however, the incubator *does*
get to decide. part of the decision is to make existing projects
aware of the application in case any of them want to become a
sponsor. if none do, then the incubator gets to decide whether
the project would be an asset to the asf, and, if so, the exit
path will be to a new top-level project.
im[h?]o.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"