incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Is deciding the destination up front a mistake? (Was: Let's rewind!!!)
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:45:54 GMT
Brett Porter wrote:
> On 2/4/06, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>This discussion would be a lot easier if it were of the form "here's
>>code that I would like to see at the ASF, and I'd like to participate
>>and make use of it in the following manner... independent of where the
>>code ends up".
>>But as it stands, the discussion to date gives the appearance that a
>>number of people are more interested in where this code ends up than in
>>the code itself.
> These were my thoughts exactly reading the earlier threads. It's
> amazing that everyone seems to accept that its a good idea and yet its
> stalled on the destination. FWIW, I thought Bill's explanation of how
> the destination was selected was great.

Analogy: the ASF does not accept targetted donations of cash, for
example if IBM were to say "I'll give you this sum of money, but only if
you spend it on advertizing for Geronimo" they would be turned down flatly.

Code is clearly not as fungible as cash.  So I can certainly imagine
code bases that only make sense in the context of a given project.  But
that is quite a different thing than a contribution with strings
attached, and does not appear to be the case here.

> So, is selecting the destination up front a bad idea? I don't see how
> it should ever matter unless the destination excludes someone (which
> is a different problem!)
> How about listing potential destinations, and reasons some aren't
> potential destinations? Then those that want to be involved can say so
> and the best destination can be selected on exit. It occurs to me that
> its not entirely certain whether ServiceMix will be a part of
> Geronimo, or a TLP anyway.
> The governance becomes entirely the responsibility of the incubator
> PMC until it graduates, or forms a PPMC as it decides to target
> becoming a TLP. Collaboration starts on general@incubator until a dev
> list is formed for the thing being incubated itself.
> As a step by step process, this would be:

Let's make it simple.

Sponsor is determined prior to incubation.  Multiple sponsors are
welcome.  The incubator can be a sponsor.

Destination is selected on exit.  Everybody's input will be considered
in the process.  But the final decision is the hands of the incubator
and either the receiving PMC or, in the case of TLP, the board.

Note: Derby had a PPMC.  And it ended up in the DB PMC.  Agila has a
PPMC, and it is expected to go to WS.  Harmony has a PPMC, and is
expected to go TLP.

- Sam Ruby

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message