incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Actively retiring projects
Date Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:48:26 GMT
On 15 January 2012 20:55, Robert Burrell Donkin
<> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>> +1
> Voting to terminate a project through lack of success sends a very
> clear message. Being 'terminated' is a very clear and public
> punishment, both for Mentors and for the project.

I'm not sure why people (not just you Rob) are fixating on the idea of
voting to terminate a podling. That is currently and will always be an
action of last resort. It is not a new option. We've already done it
for failed projects.

This discussion is about being clearer about what we expect to see
projects and mentors doing to avoid having such a vote called. It is
not about automatically booting long lived projects (at least that is
how I am reading comments on this and related threads).

As an example, Wookie, is a long lived project. It is not ready for
graduation. However, I believe that the projects board reports
indicate positive community building activities with measurable
results. Furthermore I believe there is sufficient evidence of mentors
being actively engaged with these efforts. Consequently, I have zero
concerns about the IPMC calling a vote to "boot" the project.

The only way I can say this with such certainty is that I am a mentor
and fully engaged with the project. I can be equally certain about
some other long lived projects where I am not a mentor. However, their
board reports are equally (or even more) informative and as a result I
am confident nobody will call to boot those projects.

However, there are other projects I am unable to evaluate into his
way. Here we have to go on trust because board reports are
uninformative. My concern, and that of others AIUI, is that for these
projects mentors appear not to be engaged as reports are not signed
off or are so weak it is unlikely that they discussed them with the
community. Without the support we are supposed to be giving these
projects will they ever graduate?

[ASIDE: I have this problem with some TLP board reports too, but that
is out of scope here]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that these projects should be
booted. I believe they are saying that we must do a better job of
either a) communicating the project status to those outside the
project or b) giving the project adequate mentorship (whichever is

In *extreme* cases, where the project is just not going to go anywhere
for whatever reason, then we need to consider the long term affects on
the Incubator and the foundation as a whole.

I don't imagine the end result of these discussions will be suddenly
booting projects out. I imagine we will remodel the incubator and its
processes appropriately and then communicate to projects that are "at
risk" what they need to do in order to avoid any problems during the
coming x months, it will not be to call a [VOTE] to boot project
foobar from the incubator.


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

View raw message