incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Podlings & Apache Project Maturity Model (was RE: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache RocketMQ from podling to TLP)
Date Mon, 04 Sep 2017 14:37:45 GMT
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 9/4/17 4:54 AM:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:11 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> ...Its unfair for us to put some stake in the ground expecting podlings
> to
> >> match up 100% on the questions.  Many of the questions are subjective -
> is
> >> the code easy to discover? respond to bug reports in a timely manner?...
> >
> > Ok, I think I understand your reluctance now: you don't want us to set
> > a gate for graduating podlings that many TLPs might not pass.
> >
> > I agree with that, and although I'm a strong supporter of the Maturity
> > Model (having initiated it that's understandable ;-) I'm totally ok
> > with podlings graduating without fullfilling all of its requirements.
> >
> > In my view the model is:
> >
> > 1) A good tool to help discover areas that podlings might have neglected.
> >
> > 2) A good tool to help podlings look at where they stand, and what
> > they might still need to improve after graduation.
> >
> > 3) A good tool to express our ideal way of doing things, in a concise
> > way, and evolve that definition over time.
> >
> > Based on this I will continue to push for podlings to come to
> > graduation with a self-assessment based on that model.
> >
> > OTOH I'm fine with us clarifying that it's not a requirement.
>
> Proposal: It should be a *requirement* for the podling to self-document
> their maturity model answers in the [DISCUSS] thread before IPMC
> graduation vote.  The requirement is having done it, not passing it.
>
>
To be clear - it is not a requirement today for podlings to complete the
Apache Project Maturity Model.  I'll be honest, I have no idea why they
think they have to do it, but they do it.  I don't want to stop them from
doing it, but I want to stop them from incorrectly stating they pass
everything.  I also want to clarify that the answers should not be "Yes" or
"No" but an "OK" and explaining their response, or perhaps an "N/A" and
explain why that line doesn't apply to them yet (the most common issue is
related to something Dave's brought up recently where projects are answer
the security reporting questions).


> It's *very* helpful to have podlings consider their growth using some
> form of structured and consistent criteria, so IPMC (and board) can
> consider how different podlings see themselves compared to past podling
> history.
>
> It doesn't mean every podling has to say "Yes 100%" to every question,
> just that they've considered each point and can describe their situation
> there if not.  I'd expect plenty of podlings would have some missing or
> "we're not completely here" on some points, but still be healthy and
> well-self-governing communities ready to graduate.
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
>   https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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