You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> on 2012/01/15 18:00:18 UTC
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800:
> Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation
> effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no
> harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere?
> I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising
> zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator.
>
For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction
between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons
(say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons
(say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers).
And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
> > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith <st...@stoo.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic
> > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way
> > or the other soon.
> >>
> >> If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no
> >> question, they both have my vote on that question.
> >
> > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is
> > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken
> > in the Incubator.
> >
> >> If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and
> >> paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with
> >> little or no change, then I strongly object.
> >
> > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC
> > has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that
> > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence.
> >
> > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it
> > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato
> > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC
> > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now.
> >
> > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any
> > podling which leaves the main sequence...)
> >
> > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last.
> > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient
> > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I think the email trail will be fairly clear one way
or the other, and hence still oppose adding more labels
to the situation.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> Relevant difference: when we reject a project we do that on public
> lists, when you apply to a university the fact you did so is private.
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:03:45 -0800:
>> I don't see why. When you apply to a university you either
>> receive an acceptance letter or a letter of regret; we don't
>> have to make any other distinctions regarding our internal
>> reasons either. Simply part ways amicably and help them
>> thru the exit door, no matter if they were chronic policy
>> violators or simply didn't muster a sufficient dev community.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:00 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report
> (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>> >
>> > Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800:
>> >> Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed
> incubation
>> >> effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work
> out, no
>> >> harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere?
>> >> I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of
> promising
>> >> zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator.
>> >>
>> >
>> > For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction
>> > between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative'
> reasons
>> > (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive'
> reasons
>> > (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers).
>> >
>> > And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com>
>> >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Cc:
>> >> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
>> >> > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board
> report
>> > (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby
>> > <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith
>> > <st...@stoo.me.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant
> have shown
>> > heroic
>> >> > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will
> resolve itself
>> > one way
>> >> > or the other soon.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good
> guys, there is
>> > no
>> >> >> question, they both have my vote on that question.
>> >> >
>> >> > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the
> Foundation is
>> >> > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all
> that's
>> > broken
>> >> > in the Incubator.
>> >> >
>> >> >> If the question is whether or not a podling can
> essentially copy
>> > and
>> >> >> paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after
> year,
>> > with
>> >> >> little or no change, then I strongly object.
>> >> >
>> >> > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects.
> The IPMC
>> >> > has collectively failed to account in its system for
> podlings that
>> >> > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence.
>> >> >
>> >> > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system
> when it
>> >> > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after
> month, Kato
>> >> > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the
> IPMC
>> >> > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before
> now.
>> >> >
>> >> > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club:
> terminate any
>> >> > podling which leaves the main sequence...)
>> >> >
>> >> > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be
> the last.
>> >> > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing
> an
>> > efficient
>> >> > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert
>> >> >
>> >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
You didn't annoy me Benson, I think you're spot on, +1.
Cheers,
Chris
On Jan 15, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be
> really clear about their views about several different podling
> profiles.
>
> a: A reasonably diverse group of 5-7 people start a podling. A year
> later, they've made a release or two, but no one new has turned up.
> Mentors attest to good community behavior, openness to patches -- just
> no one who has done enough to be added to the group. In other words,
> all good as a prospective TLP except that they've never been through
> the process of adding someone.
>
> b: A group of 3-4, otherwise the same as (a). Thus, a risk of falling
> below critical mass.
>
> c: not even enough people to be a TLP by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> I would say, with all respect to Ant, that the Foundation clearly has
> not put the IPMC in the business of hosting tiny projects like (c).
> The term 'failure' applies after some period of time. If folks wish
> that the foundation had a place for such a project, I would submit
> that this would be a discussion to have with the board as to what that
> place might be and how it might work. Otherwise, Joe's views seem
> entirely on point.
>
> I think that it would be a good idea to emphasize in the discussion of
> prospective podlings with small initial groups. If it's really clear
> from the outset that a failure to grow in 12 months or so will mean an
> exit, then it will be easier on everyone.
>
> I know that some people feel that (a) podlings can just graduate,
> period. If there are people who disagree, I'd like to know, because it
> will allow me to give better advice to Accumulo.
>
> If I sadly succeed in merely annoying anyone with this post, I'll set
> my go-away timer for several weeks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be
really clear about their views about several different podling
profiles.
a: A reasonably diverse group of 5-7 people start a podling. A year
later, they've made a release or two, but no one new has turned up.
Mentors attest to good community behavior, openness to patches -- just
no one who has done enough to be added to the group. In other words,
all good as a prospective TLP except that they've never been through
the process of adding someone.
b: A group of 3-4, otherwise the same as (a). Thus, a risk of falling
below critical mass.
c: not even enough people to be a TLP by any stretch of the imagination.
I would say, with all respect to Ant, that the Foundation clearly has
not put the IPMC in the business of hosting tiny projects like (c).
The term 'failure' applies after some period of time. If folks wish
that the foundation had a place for such a project, I would submit
that this would be a discussion to have with the board as to what that
place might be and how it might work. Otherwise, Joe's views seem
entirely on point.
I think that it would be a good idea to emphasize in the discussion of
prospective podlings with small initial groups. If it's really clear
from the outset that a failure to grow in 12 months or so will mean an
exit, then it will be easier on everyone.
I know that some people feel that (a) podlings can just graduate,
period. If there are people who disagree, I'd like to know, because it
will allow me to give better advice to Accumulo.
If I sadly succeed in merely annoying anyone with this post, I'll set
my go-away timer for several weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Relevant difference: when we reject a project we do that on public
lists, when you apply to a university the fact you did so is private.
Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:03:45 -0800:
> I don't see why. When you apply to a university you either
> receive an acceptance letter or a letter of regret; we don't
> have to make any other distinctions regarding our internal
> reasons either. Simply part ways amicably and help them
> thru the exit door, no matter if they were chronic policy
> violators or simply didn't muster a sufficient dev community.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
> >
> > Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800:
> >> Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation
> >> effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no
> >> harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere?
> >> I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising
> >> zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator.
> >>
> >
> > For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction
> > between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons
> > (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons
> > (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers).
> >
> > And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter.
> >
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
> >> > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report
> > (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby
> > <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith
> > <st...@stoo.me.uk>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> >>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown
> > heroic
> >> > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself
> > one way
> >> > or the other soon.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is
> > no
> >> >> question, they both have my vote on that question.
> >> >
> >> > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is
> >> > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's
> > broken
> >> > in the Incubator.
> >> >
> >> >> If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy
> > and
> >> >> paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year,
> > with
> >> >> little or no change, then I strongly object.
> >> >
> >> > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC
> >> > has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that
> >> > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence.
> >> >
> >> > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it
> >> > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato
> >> > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC
> >> > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now.
> >> >
> >> > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any
> >> > podling which leaves the main sequence...)
> >> >
> >> > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last.
> >> > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an
> > efficient
> >> > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this.
> >> >
> >> > Robert
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > 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
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I don't see why. When you apply to a university you either
receive an acceptance letter or a letter of regret; we don't
have to make any other distinctions regarding our internal
reasons either. Simply part ways amicably and help them
thru the exit door, no matter if they were chronic policy
violators or simply didn't muster a sufficient dev community.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800:
>> Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation
>> effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no
>> harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere?
>> I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising
>> zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator.
>>
>
> For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction
> between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons
> (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons
> (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers).
>
> And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter.
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
>> > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report
> (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby
> <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith
> <st...@stoo.me.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown
> heroic
>> > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself
> one way
>> > or the other soon.
>> >>
>> >> If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is
> no
>> >> question, they both have my vote on that question.
>> >
>> > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is
>> > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's
> broken
>> > in the Incubator.
>> >
>> >> If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy
> and
>> >> paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year,
> with
>> >> little or no change, then I strongly object.
>> >
>> > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC
>> > has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that
>> > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence.
>> >
>> > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it
>> > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato
>> > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC
>> > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now.
>> >
>> > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any
>> > podling which leaves the main sequence...)
>> >
>> > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last.
>> > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an
> efficient
>> > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this.
>> >
>> > Robert
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800:
> > Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation
> > effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no
> > harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere?
> > I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising
> > zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator.
> >
>
> For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction
> between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons
> (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons
> (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers).
>
> And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter.
>
+1 The idea needs more details for sure IMHO, but I like the base line of
it.
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
> > > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report
> (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith <stukato@stoo.me.uk
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic
> > > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself
> one way
> > > or the other soon.
> > >>
> > >> If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no
> > >> question, they both have my vote on that question.
> > >
> > > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is
> > > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken
> > > in the Incubator.
> > >
> > >> If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and
> > >> paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with
> > >> little or no change, then I strongly object.
> > >
> > > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC
> > > has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that
> > > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence.
> > >
> > > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it
> > > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato
> > > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC
> > > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now.
> > >
> > > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any
> > > podling which leaves the main sequence...)
> > >
> > > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last.
> > > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient
> > > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this.
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein