incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject oversight (was: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?)
Date Sun, 05 Jan 2003 22:42:56 GMT
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 10:01:54PM +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> Justin,
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > whatever).  Why should the Jakarta project increase their management 
> > burden when they already have problems managing what they have?
> > 
> What problems do you see that Jakarta has managing what it has? BTW, this is 
> a genuine question, not flamebait. I have seen this statement repeated often 
> and would like to understand its basis.

The Jakarta PMC is *way* overburdened. Any notion that they are truly
monitoring *all* of Jakarta is right out the window. This is immediately
obvious at the Board level when we get a one-sentence report at the Board
meeting about the state of Jakarta (see the November 2002 minutes).

> Isn't the incubator supposed to decide exactly that question? One of the 
> problems with the incubator is when the ultimate answer is "No", what then 
> for a project such as Tapestry that has undergone such changes? I'd like to 
> see some discussion around that, for I feel it may be very difficult to say 
> No after acceptance into the Incubator.

Actually, an interesting response to this would be: every project coming out
the Incubator gets its own PMC. That solves the oversight problem, and it
solves the question of "what if the PMC later decides it doesn't want the

Presumably, the project entered the Incubator based on another PMC's request
or based on the Incubator itself deciding to accept it. The exit rule for
the incubator is, effectively, a self-sustaining community. Wrapping a PMC
around that is no big deal (because, really, the PMC simply equals the
active committers that have been "in the incubator").


Greg Stein,

View raw message