Moving to proper [Was: Promote Compress to Commons Proper]

[Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I believe we've said in order for a component to be promoted we are
>> looking for some expression of "commitment" (in quotes for obvious
>> reasons) from folks to mitigate the risk of thrown over the wall and
>> quickly orphaned components. I also believe we've had folks voting
>> differently (while some may +1, others tend to +0). I think thats
>> fine.
>
> Yes I agree this is a valid concern for any promotion vote - but thats
> not what Henri said and I think my point is still valid that if all
> PMC members only voted +1 on promotions of components they plan to
> contribute to then the sandbox may as well be shut down. Fortunatly
> thats not the case so far in this vote.

Agreed on the need to get this right - that's partly why I voted that
way. Personally I think this is a case where committer votes should be
binding, not PMC. What we have is a project that, barring some large
social disagreement we'll happily move to proper if it's had a short
stabilization period (I'd be surprised at less than 6 months, but
really this is just that the component has passed some undefined bar
of happiness for our community) and it has 3+ committers.

So ideally a minimum vote should be:  lots of +0s, and 3 +1s from the
committers who will work on it. You're right that if we don't consider
those as binding that votes will fall flat.

So maybe the alternative is to list the committers explicitly who are
supporting this component in the vote. Then I'll happily vote +1 on
these votes as I'll know the actual vote is not the test for having 3+
committers.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Moving to proper [Was: Promote Compress to Commons Proper]

[Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Niall Pemberton
>>> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I believe we've said in order for a component to be promoted we are
>>> looking for some expression of "commitment" (in quotes for obvious
>>> reasons) from folks to mitigate the risk of thrown over the wall and
>>> quickly orphaned components. I also believe we've had folks voting
>>> differently (while some may +1, others tend to +0). I think thats
>>> fine.
>>
>> Yes I agree this is a valid concern for any promotion vote - but thats
>> not what Henri said and I think my point is still valid that if all
>> PMC members only voted +1 on promotions of components they plan to
>> contribute to then the sandbox may as well be shut down. Fortunatly
>> thats not the case so far in this vote.
>
<snip/>

I'm comfortable +1'ing promotions for sandbox components I intend to
follow, but not necessarily contribute to. I do not follow [compress]
at all, but it seems to be doing well as things whiz by me on the
list, so my +0.

IMO, the metric is 3 folks planning to follow a component's progress
(whether or not all of them are actively contributing code).

-Rahul


> Agreed on the need to get this right - that's partly why I voted that
> way. Personally I think this is a case where committer votes should be
> binding, not PMC. What we have is a project that, barring some large
> social disagreement we'll happily move to proper if it's had a short
> stabilization period (I'd be surprised at less than 6 months, but
> really this is just that the component has passed some undefined bar
> of happiness for our community) and it has 3+ committers.
>
> So ideally a minimum vote should be:  lots of +0s, and 3 +1s from the
> committers who will work on it. You're right that if we don't consider
> those as binding that votes will fall flat.
>
> So maybe the alternative is to list the committers explicitly who are
> supporting this component in the vote. Then I'll happily vote +1 on
> these votes as I'll know the actual vote is not the test for having 3+
> committers.
>
> Hen
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org