incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate REEF
Date Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:22:10 GMT
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Chris Douglas <> wrote:
> Heh; yes, you're right. As one of REEF's mentors, I'll add some of my
> observations of its community and development.
> The REEF project has built an open, welcoming, and diverse community.
> From my sampling of the dev@ list over the last year or so, all design
> discussions (including infrastructure, build, and coding conventions)
> are at the ASF [1,2,3]. The project also rotates release managers
> [4,5], does solid code reviews, and has taken its IP hygiene
> seriously. The most common affiliations (Microsoft, Seoul National
> University) have not formed cliques, neither have members failed to
> bring discussion to the dev list despite shared affiliation [6] and a
> significant timezone gap.
> From all I've observed, the project groks the Apache Way and is ready
> to be a TLP. -C
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]

Chris, thanks much for putting together this documented testimonial!  It will
be great to have REEF as a TLP.

I checked over the resolution and it looks good except for one thing I'm not
certain about -- the two scope statements don't agree precisely.  One speaks
of "a software framework" and the other, "ease of development":

>>>>         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>>>>         interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
>>>>         Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
>>>>         Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
>>>>         open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the
>>>>         public, related to the ease of development of applications on
>>>>         top of resource managers.

>>>>         RESOLVED, that the Apache REEF Project be and hereby is
>>>>         responsible for the creation and maintenance of a software
>>>>         framework for application development on top of resource
>>>>         managers; and be it further

In all the other resolutions I've seen, the scope statements are the same.
Common sense tells me that this shouldn't be a big deal -- but common sense
also tells me that the redundant scope statements in these resolutions are
goofy, which is probably the wrong reading for this sort of legalese. :)

Was the discrepancy deliberate?  If not, perhaps pick the one folks like more
and bring the two instances into sync.

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message