You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/13 09:46:11 UTC
A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
This is a legitimate question - by my very rough count, we've accepted
25-30 podlings into the Incubator in the last year, and other than the
JavaX trainwreck, I'm having a hard time finding examples of potential
podlings we've declined to incubate. Some of that is certainly because it's
not easy to find the failures - I'm assuming they tend not to make it to a
vote. But I'm really curious about this - what's the last example (if any)
of a potential podling making it to the vote stage but not being accepted?
Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting
to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote? Is it
culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?
A.
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Sterling Hughes <st...@apache.org>.
Just a note to chime in specifically on Mynewt.
The simulated tests are very low overhead, its a single process that
requires a virtual timer (i.e. elapsed runtime from OS scheduler vs
real time) at a 1ms tick.
There is no requirement to have physical hardware testing within the
ASF project itself. For the platforms we're concerned about at
runtime, we're hosting all the physical hardware and automated
regression tests locally. I think that some company (or set of
companies) will always do this, because of the physical space
constraints. Additionally committers / users will have their own
hardware platforms to vett releases and catch-errors.
Sterling
PS: This thread has a bit more info:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201510.mbox/%3CCAFm0b3r_z3RfEs3DGOAaHst4Lpw%2BCXHwMhxd6H9Gar2_HpMZdg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
>> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
>> what expectations we're setting, etc.
>
>
> While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t see too much of an issue here as I assume testing can be done via simulation (and not on the target platforms) on currently available infrastructure. PPMC members or interested committers / users are likely to have their own hardware to validate releases and that hardware is of reasonably low cost ($20-$50 for a development board).
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
If a project has infra requirements that are not “standard” for the ASF then these should, IMHO, be uncovered by the champion/mentors prior to proposal. If missed there then the discuss phase should uncover them.
These should then be discussed with the infra team prior to vote.
Ross
Sent from Outlook Mail<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987> for Windows 10 phone
From: Justin Mclean
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:57 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Hi,
> I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> what expectations we're setting, etc.
While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t see too much of an issue here as I assume testing can be done via simulation (and not on the target platforms) on currently available infrastructure. PPMC members or interested committers / users are likely to have their own hardware to validate releases and that hardware is of reasonably low cost ($20-$50 for a development board).
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> what expectations we're setting, etc.
While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t see too much of an issue here as I assume testing can be done via simulation (and not on the target platforms) on currently available infrastructure. PPMC members or interested committers / users are likely to have their own hardware to validate releases and that hardware is of reasonably low cost ($20-$50 for a development board).
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#proposal-template
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:andrew.bayer@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 8:04 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Where is that template kept?
A.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer
> <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template
> covering
> > infrastructural requirements/expectations?...
>
> You could add a question to the "Required Resources" section of the
> podling proposals, where podlings have to express any unusual needs.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
Where is that template kept?
A.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template
> covering
> > infrastructural requirements/expectations?...
>
> You could add a question to the "Required Resources" section of the
> podling proposals, where podlings have to express any unusual needs.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template covering
> infrastructural requirements/expectations?...
You could add a question to the "Required Resources" section of the
podling proposals, where podlings have to express any unusual needs.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template covering
infrastructural requirements/expectations?
A.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the
> infrastructure
> > costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> > enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> > what expectations we're setting, etc....
>
> I don't think we've ever done that, and if you're concerned it's fine
> to ask our infrastructure team about it.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the infrastructure
> costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> what expectations we're setting, etc....
I don't think we've ever done that, and if you're concerned it's fine
to ask our infrastructure team about it.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the infrastructure
costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
what expectations we're setting, etc.
A.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
> getting
> > to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
>
> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> no earlier.
>
> > ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
>
> Definitely.
>
> > ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
>
> Off the top of my head I'd say:
> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a community
> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> project will never graduate
>
> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 10/13/2015 04:40 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
>>> turned into a pariah in the process. =)...
>>
>> I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling.
>>
>> As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable
>> justification is provided people should pay attention to it.
>
> Minor nit:
> If suitable justification is provided, people MUST pay attention to it.
> We have a clear rule in the policy that if someone wants to put a vote
> on hold, it must happen:
> "If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before the 72 hours [voting
> period] are up, a formal discussion/vote will be conducted. "
Scratch that, the docs are a bit vaguely written here and confused me. I
think this refers to lazy consensus, which is something that rarely happens.
Sorry.
With regards,
Daniel.
>
> On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
> graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
The social pressure is likely to be there, but I would definitely stand up
for the expectation that you *should* vote -1 if you really do have a
concern.
That said, there is also a strong push back against ending the discussion
too early precisely because of the possibility somebody with an important
point of view is out of pocket. There is normally a week or possibly more
between beginning of discussion and beginning of vote. This typically
includes several days of silence as we wait for last minute thoughts to
come up.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > ...On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
> > graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?...
>
> Even if the docs mentioned consensus, in Apache projects that means
> "widespread agreement among people who have decision power". It does
> not necessarily mean "unanimity".
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
> graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?...
Even if the docs mentioned consensus, in Apache projects that means
"widespread agreement among people who have decision power". It does
not necessarily mean "unanimity".
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
>> turned into a pariah in the process. =)...
>
> I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling.
>
> As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable
> justification is provided people should pay attention to it.
Minor nit:
If suitable justification is provided, people MUST pay attention to it.
We have a clear rule in the policy that if someone wants to put a vote
on hold, it must happen:
"If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before the 72 hours [voting
period] are up, a formal discussion/vote will be conducted. "
On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?
With regards,
Daniel.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> turned into a pariah in the process. =)...
I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling.
As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable
justification is provided people should pay attention to it.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
Thanks - just wanted to make sure. =)
A.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were
> to
> > still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in
> the
> > DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be
> socially
> > permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
> > well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so
> bucking
> > the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
> > stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate
> to
> > enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> > turned into a pariah in the process. =)
> >
> > (and again - this is purely hypothetical)
> >
>
> Yes, you can vote a -1.
>
> NO ONE should feel pressured to vote on something in a
> way opposite to how they feel.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to
> still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the
> DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially
> permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
> well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so bucking
> the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
> stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate to
> enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> turned into a pariah in the process. =)
>
> (and again - this is purely hypothetical)
>
Yes, you can vote a -1.
NO ONE should feel pressured to vote on something in a
way opposite to how they feel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to
> still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the
> DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially
> permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
> well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so bucking
> the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
> stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate to
> enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> turned into a pariah in the process. =)
Yes, as an example, take a look at the OpenOffice vote[1] that Nick referred to.
Thanks,
--tim
[1] - http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTinv5A3Zpk_9fWHgg8WC3QMAfKRKFg@mail.gmail.com%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to
still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the
DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially
permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so bucking
the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate to
enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
turned into a pariah in the process. =)
(and again - this is purely hypothetical)
A.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that's just it...
>
> If a project gets to the 'vote for Incubation' phase, there's
> a real good chance that all the non-viable and non-acceptable
> proposals have either been modified or simply rejected before
> it even gets that far.
>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected
> during
> > initial champion counseling or during discussion.
> >
> > If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care,
> > this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however.
> >
> > As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the
> outcome
> > is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
> >> getting
> >>>> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a
> vote?..
> >>>
> >>> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> >>> no earlier.
> >>>
> >>>> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
> >>>
> >>> Definitely.
> >>>
> >>>> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
> >>>
> >>> Off the top of my head I'd say:
> >>> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> >>> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> >>> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a
> >> community
> >>> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> >>> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> >>> project will never graduate
> >>>
> >>> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> >>> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
> >>
> >> 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
> >> for example.
> >> 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yeah, that's just it...
If a project gets to the 'vote for Incubation' phase, there's
a real good chance that all the non-viable and non-acceptable
proposals have either been modified or simply rejected before
it even gets that far.
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected during
> initial champion counseling or during discussion.
>
> If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care,
> this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however.
>
> As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the outcome
> is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
>> getting
>>>> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
>>>
>>> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
>>> no earlier.
>>>
>>>> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>>> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
>>>
>>> Off the top of my head I'd say:
>>> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
>>> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
>>> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a
>> community
>>> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
>>> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
>>> project will never graduate
>>>
>>> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
>>> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
>>
>> 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
>> for example.
>> 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected during
initial champion counseling or during discussion.
If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care,
this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however.
As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the outcome
is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
> getting
> >> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
> >
> > I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> > no earlier.
> >
> >> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
> >
> > Definitely.
> >
> >> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
> >
> > Off the top of my head I'd say:
> > 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> > 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> > 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a
> community
> > 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> > 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> > project will never graduate
> >
> > We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> > absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
>
> 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
> for example.
> 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting
>> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
>
> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> no earlier.
>
>> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
>
> Definitely.
>
>> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
>
> Off the top of my head I'd say:
> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a community
> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> project will never graduate
>
> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
for example.
7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 09:59 +0200, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
>
> Off the top of my head I'd say:
A look back at the OpenOffice thread would find an example
where significant questions and doubts were discussed.
The political circumstances (Oracle vs LibreOffice)
were a concern for some.
--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting
> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
no earlier.
> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
Definitely.
> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
Off the top of my head I'd say:
1) Not enough experienced mentors
2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a community
4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
project will never graduate
We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
Forgot to add - and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?
A.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is a legitimate question - by my very rough count, we've accepted
> 25-30 podlings into the Incubator in the last year, and other than the
> JavaX trainwreck, I'm having a hard time finding examples of potential
> podlings we've declined to incubate. Some of that is certainly because it's
> not easy to find the failures - I'm assuming they tend not to make it to a
> vote. But I'm really curious about this - what's the last example (if any)
> of a potential podling making it to the vote stage but not being accepted?
> Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting
> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote? Is it
> culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?
>
> A.
>