incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <>
Subject Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:11:58 GMT
>The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new 
>projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper. 
>This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.

>>I'd agree.
>I'm worried that Tapestry hasn't been incubated, and hence is missing out 
I doubt it.

>>Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the 
>>Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW), 
>>that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have 
>>not done goes to our demerit.
>I'll agree to disagree on that point.
The same.  I feel that it is very to the demerit of the incubator to 
have been nothing more than dead weight and an
obstructionist frontend load on an already load-heavy enterprise.

>>If there is one thing that I have learned from this, is that we cannot 
>>delegate to others that are not from this PMC.
>>Another is that we need more PMCers, especially from the Java land.
>I'm hoping that the incubator project didn't delegate the incubation of 
>Tapestry to myself and Andy without somehow informing us. There have been 
>various requests along the way for more information and documentation 
>along the way, and many unanswered emails {1-4} etc.
honestly, it went exactly as I expected.  The process hasn't improved:

1. The guantlet.  - Persistance is required.  1000 uninvolved parties 
come to debate why your project should not
be included with little factual information.  Generally these involved 
"this wil be the end of Apache.. . Save our club!  Apache's
 too big.  Its too late for this project to be included.  The project is 
too immature to be included.  The project competes with X"  Generally
none of the arguments have to do with the viability of the community 
(which is supposed to be what we care about barring legal/patent issues).
This does serve a purpose in a suboptimal way.  Only the persistant get 
in.  This requires much less bandwidth of any one party than researching 
the project's community but often proves the community (their 
persistance at least).

2. Acceptance - The guntlet born, now the project is accepted and 
generally no hard feelings...

3. The Dead Zone - A period of pain and misery as the project tries to 
get enough people whom have relevant access to actually perform a function
or delegate responsibility to the project members.  (For POI this 
resulted in our website taking 3-4 months to get running).

4. Incorporation - Through additional badgering the site gets up, the 
access is granted, bugzilla gets modules, etc. 

5. Stage II Incorporation - Committers become members, PMC members or 
otherwise semi-listened to.

So far the Incubator has exasurbated #1 while not participating in the 
alternative (researching the community, guiding the community)
The incubator has done little to facillitate #2.  Nothing to prevent, 
get around, etc #3 and we've not made it to #4 or #5 yet!

Excuse the cynacism but I've watched this go around a few times.

>Having been involved in helping Tapestry, I feel a complete absence of any 
>incubation presence working with the project. I can't speak about any 
>other effort.
Agreed.  I'd like to hear the Tapestry developers sound off on what they 
think the incubation process has brought them.

>dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message