incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Etch
Date Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:08:01 GMT
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 12:33 -0500, James Dixson wrote:
> It seems discussion has died down a bit.
> So to wrap up on the last issues discussed:
> I think we should just keep the name. We have quite a bit of goodwill
> invested in the name already and it is certainly no worse than other names
> that have been accepted into incubation. So unless there is a direct
> objection to incubation because of the name, lets just table it as a concern
> to monitor and move on.
> The only other issue that has been floating around is the size of the
> initial committers. Scott and I detailed various contributions explicitly
> and for those we did not callout in this list, we did call out in the
> proposal itself.
> All of the committers listed are active contributors to Etch today. There
> have been more contributors in the past and plenty in our circle of friends
> here at Cisco that would like to be contributors. But as I mentioned
> originally, we culled the list based on active contributors today. I
> understand that starting with 14 may mean staying in incubation "longer",
> but I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing. I am not in any race to
> finish incubation "quickly". If there is true interest in Etch, there will
> be plenty of contributors and the project will be better for it. So again,
> unless there is a specific, direct objection to incubation because of the
> length of the committer list, lets just table it, like the name, as a
> concern to monitor and move on.
> Give that, is there anything else that prevents us calling for a vote?

My expressed concern was to do with the length of the committer list. If
you start with 14 committers, (and they all remain active) you won't be
able to graduate until you reach at least 29 committers - so that there
isn't a predominance from one organisation. 29 is a lot of committers
for this kind of project. If you recruited one committer every two
months, that would mean you'd be in incubation for nearly three years.
Just trying to set some expectations.

Having said that, if the project is prepared to go ahead on that basis,
then I'm fine with it too, and would happily vote for it.

I do think it is time for a vote.

Regards, Upayavira

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

View raw message