incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator
Date Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:40:22 GMT
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 2015-07-23 00:31, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
>> Thanks Julian - that's something that this community would have it
>> improve.
>> Although I don't see if a particular way of using (or not using) JIRA is a
>> graduation's requirement. If there's a way to trace a particular feature
>> to an
>> archived discussion - ie mailing list - there's no problem in my
>> professional
>> view ;)
>>
>> As Brane said above: perhaps not the still snapshot, but rather the
>> trends of
>> the improvements have to be considered when the future graduation is
>> discussed.
>>
>> Do we have a disagreement about the graduation criteria? Yes. Does IPMC
>> asks
>> right questions: sure!
>>
>> Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new
>> PMC
>> with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside
>> committers,
>> thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
>> communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
>> might have the consensus.
>>
>>  If the podling has to be tasked with fixing procedures after graduation,
> the podling is not ready to graduate, in my view.
> The incubator is tasked with ensuring that podlings adhere to the
> guidelines for open source development we have in the ASF, and if we let
> podlings graduate before they have consistently proven that they do just
> that, it diminishes the value of the incubator.
>
> There should be no rush here. If the IPMC has reasonable concerns (as is
> mentioned by several IPMC members) and can list specific procedures and/or
> philosophies that need to change, I think it best that the podling works
> towards this and seeks to graduate at a later time when these issues are
> considered resolved in a manner that the IPMC agrees with. This is and
> should be a consensus issue, and as such, I think it would be best for the
> podling to take a step back, address the issues, and then come back to the
> IPMC when they believe they have incorporated the necessary changes.
>

Hi Daniel, I agree. However, while I believe that every project can improve
in many ways, I think that our processes are very open and community
friendly. So far we have had many new contributors submit patches that have
been accepted or in progress:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1059
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1055
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1017
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-428
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-788
etc...

Also, I believe I have addressed the concerns you have raised in my reply
to your other email. Happy to discuss further.


>
> For the reasons stated above, I am -1 on this as it stands.


> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message