incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko Čibej <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator
Date Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:08:45 GMT
On 29.07.2015 19:51, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2015 12:45 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" <> wrote:
>>>> On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>>>> Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks
> issues, but
>>>>>> hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine day when the
>>> IPMC
>>>>>> starts telling podlings how their development workflow should look
>>> like.
>>>>> Does "works for them" translate into "people not currently in the
>>>>> community can follow how the existing community tracks issues, so
> they
>>>>> can contribute and become part of the community"? If so, then maybe
> it's
>>>>> OK. If it's not transparent to folks not currently part of that
>>>>> community, it's hard to see how the community will sustain itself
> with
>>>>> new members as other folks inevitably move on to other projects.
>>>> Given that new contributors keep showing up on a regular basis, I have
>>>> to assume that it's not so opaque as all that.
>>>> Anyway, Ignite has been discussing and implementing a revised (and IMO
>>>> better) set of policies for Jira use and git workflow since this
>>>> discussion started; other than displaying an incomprehensible
> preference
>>>> for RTC, it seems to be going well.
>>> I always translate RTC as "we don't trust you, so somebody else must
>>> approve anything you do."
>>> To me, that is a lousy basis for creating a community. Trust and peer
>>> respect should be the basis, which implies CTR. I have seen many excuses
>>> for RTC, but they all are just window dressing over mistrust.
>> While I tend to agree with you, it worth noting that there's a whole
> bunch of
>> TLPs sticking to RTC.  So, this data point doesn't reflect on the podling
> in
>> question.
> And POW!! There is one excuse on display already :-P
> "But others do it."

How 'bout I propose a board resolution forbidding RTC at the ASF for
mainline development? :)

-- Brane

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

View raw message