incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2016 22:14:37 GMT
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org> 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.

I think that other discussion addresses a very different set of problems.

> Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated?

I'd rather flip your argument around and say: at this point sitting in the
Incubator adds no value to the project nor does it teach anything
new or useful to its PPMC or a community at large.

> 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 disagree. The Incubator is a place to make sure that the community
(regardless of its composition) truly understands and practices the
"Apache Way". As has been suggested on this thread by a number of
votes from project's mentors and IPMC members embedded in the
Geode community that mission has been accomplished.

I see no reason to hold the project hostage over the diversity requirement
simply because it is pointless for IPMC, project and the foundation.

> 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.

Then you really should be voting "yes" on this thread. There's a good number
of us on IPMC who believe that "we own it" is really not a problem with this
community.

Thanks,
Roman.

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


Mime
View raw message