incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:54:24 GMT

On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <> wrote:
>> > I was looking at Snoot, and some figures jumped at me.
>> >
>> > Is the Podling (and the IPMC) satisfied that there is no concern with
>> > people affiliated with a single company providing more than 90% of all
>> > commits over the past year and, as far as I can tell, the vast majority
>> > of tickets and email, as well as a 73% stake in the proposed PMC?
>> >
>> > Is the IPMC satisfied that, should this company opt to not further spend
>> > resources on this project, that the project would still be as viable?
>> >
> Hi Daniel,
> I've observed this project since it joined the incubator and they've worked
> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all the issues
> raised that could be barriers to their graduation.
> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously in
> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm not going to
> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better with
> served with a wider community, but I think what matters is 1) have they
> demonstrated the behaviors we expect and 2) are they moving in the right
> direction. Geode is a great community and a pleasure to be involved with
> and I would say yes to both of these. I believe they are going in the right
> direction to make this project less dependent on one company and except to
> change the percentages you've pointed out, theres no purpose left for them
> being in the incubator. They've shown that they can manage themselves and
> theres enough independent oversight to mitigate concerns which is why I
> think we should vote for them to graduate.

Given the discussions around single-vendor projects that are raging on
board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects that
are heavily dominated by a single vendor/company/organization
historically cause problems over time.

Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated? Surely we serve the
Foundation, and this project, better, by ensuring that this problem
(and, yes, it's a problem) is addressed before we grant them TLP status?

I'm personally less concerned with the sustainability of the project
should the company opt out of working on the project, and more concerned
with the kind of monoculture "we own it" problems that we're starting to
see crop up in other projects that were allowed to graduate without
building the community first.

Rich Bowen - - @rbowen - @apachecon

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

View raw message