incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator
Date Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:50:21 GMT
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 03:31PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> When we're talking about this podling having  gained 'committers many from
> outside the company that donated the code', I wonder who we are talking
> about.
> The reports to the IPMC show only numbers (3 in March 2015) and no names.
> And for what it is worth, the June 2015 report shows a link (
> that is pointing
> nowhere. I assume that it should have been this page:
> So we have (per today):
>    - , aka ASF
>    list,
>    - , aka Incubator list,
>    -
>    (showing affiliation), aka podling list
> And there are discrepancies between the pages. E.g.
>    - shows Ryan Rawson as a
>    committer, but is not in
> If we substract the mentors (4 according to
>, though we can argue whether
> Henry Saputra should also be in there as he is listed in the March 2015
> report to the IPMC as one of the report signers) from any list, we see the
> following changes:
>    1. Rayn Rawson (external, Apache Drill committer),
>       1. Incubator list

Rayn evidently didn't have time/resources to participate in the incubation as
initially proposed. That's why he's not in the authz template nor in the
resolution draft. 

What's the point of this list again? 

>    2.  Sergey Khisamov (external - Fitech Source),
>    1. ASF list
>       2. Incubator list,
>       3. podling list
>    3. Ilya Sterin (external - ChronoTrack),
>       1. ASF list,
>       2. Incubator list,
>       3. podling list
>    4. Evans Ye (external - TrendMicro),
>       1. ASF list,
>       2. Incubator list,
>       3. podling list
>    5. Ognen Duzlevski (external - Shoutlet),
>       1. ASF list,
>       2. Incubator list,
>       3. podling list
>    6. Gianfrano Murador (external - Engiweb Security)
>       1. ASF list
>       2. Incubator list
>       3. podling list
> Adding 5 or 6 new committers isn't many. That is a start (regarding
> diversity). It for sure doesn't scream independence, when the majority (of
> committers, intended PMC members) is affiliated to one company.
> As for building the community of the podling, a mentor has the
> responsibility to keep tabs on contributions to ensure that everything goes
> according to the policies of the ASF, of the incubator and of the podling
> and assess (together with the community) everything whether it is in line
> with those policies. And report.
> As examples:
>    - Statements (on podling pages re StackOverflow, or on external fora,
>    e.g. Nabble) that questions can be raised via those media, isn't in line
>    with how contributions to an ASF project (or podling) should be done. ASF
>    mailing lists are the primary source for non-JIRA (including code patches)
>    / non-wiki contributions. External sources are a nicety, but unreliable
>    when it comes to feeding back into the ASF mailing lists or identifying
>    active contributors or assessing potential additions to list of the
>    privileged few;
>    - Community pages should reflect how the on-boarding process is,
>    including pointing out/stressing that an iCLA is required (when
>    contributing anything above the level of question or comment);

iCLA requirement is foundation wide, Pierre. Are you getting back to the point
of by-laws again? Please don't

>    - Committed non-privileged contributors (at least those who have
>    registered an iCLA) should be listed in the pages of the podling, in order
>    to assess who (beyond committers) are enabled to make changes to e.g. wiki
>    pages, and who are eligible for commit privileges.

Is it a requirement or just something you're making up?

> And diversity is not only about the aspect of affiliation. It is also about
> having (privileged) contributors of another kind other than just those who
> contribute code changes (or register with JIRA). The pages of the podling
> should reflect such. And mentors should point that out to the community of

Again, is it some of your own wishes? If not, I'd apprecite a prooflink ;)
Otherwise we can safely skip over the rest of it.

> the podling. Otherwise the podling might imply (through its pages) that the
> other kind of contributors aren't welcome, and/or that principles of the
> ASF (e.g. 'All contributions are equal', 'Contributions buys privileges')
> aren't applicable in the podling.

Are you saying that these horrible things are practiced in the Ignite podling?
Cause if you aren't saying that explicitely then I am completely lost in the
purpose of this verbiage.

> Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more regarding
> building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory review of the
> mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements of
> organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc changes/mentor
> changes).

Perhaps, you need to complement your investigation with cursory review of the
general@ list where the announcements were made.


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

View raw message