incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2016 23:23:33 GMT
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Rich Bowen <> wrote:

> 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.

I only see a discussion about one specific project and I also see a board
member in that discussion saying that having a company over represented is
not an issue and the number of committees from a single company is not a

> 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.

I think you have to judge this project by its actions.

One example was that the documentation for Geode was hosted on a company
website - we raised this as a concern and they donated the whole Geode
technical docs to the ASF.

Really though I believe its about how they run the project. I think they
have created an open and welcoming community that will should attract more
contributors and reduce the dominance of one company. I also don't believe
theres anything left for them to learn here. At some point we have to trust
them to govern themselves and holding them here until they meet a specific
percentage diversity doesn't serve any purpose.


> --
> Rich Bowen - - @rbowen
> - @apachecon
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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