incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Unomi to TLP
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:12:31 GMT
On 1/22/19 3:09 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 00:37, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:21 PM Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>>>   -0 (binding) - This podling has never completed a suitable podling name
>>> search. It seems that people no longer consider that relevant as it is not
>>> in the Maturity model and I’m not sure why. It could be because that is
>>> ComDev and not the IPMC.
>> The "Maturity Model" (MM) is just a thing developed by ComDev peeps. It has
>> no bearing within the Foundation, other than as a lens for individuals to
>> view projects. That lens is not part of the Incubator, or any other PMC.
>> Personally, I do not view the "podling name search" (PNS) as a gate. That
>> is another imposition, from outside the Incubator, that has crept into the
>> "Must Be Performed(tm)" guidelines for graduation. The Board is the
>> ultimate arbiter of whether a podling can graduate, and a name search is
>> informative for them, rather than gating for us [on the IPMC]. If a podling
>> wants to be called "Apache Acme", and "gee, there are a lot of Acme
>> products out there", then that is on the community. Not something for the
>> Incubator to demand they change; just something for them to deal with. A
>> community problem, rather than one for the Incubator or the Foundation
>> itself.
> I disagree on that point - as VP Brand I would, wouldn't I ;)
> If there is an issue with the name (that the PNS would have uncovered)
> then the likely solution is that the (now graduated) project will have
> to rename. That has a cost for both the community and the foundation.
> While in some cases there are clearly no conflicts, in others it is not
> quite so clear cut. The aim of the PNS is to enable both the podling and
> the foundation (delegated to the Branding Committee) to decide if the
> choice of name is acceptable given the degree of risk associated with
> any potential conflict and the associated costs of a rename should that
> risk materialise.
> (There is an assumption here that early renames result in lower costs
> for both the community and the foundation).
> As VP Brand I am likely recommend against a podling graduating without a
> PNS on the basis that it represents an unknown level of risk. The board
> may approve the resolution anyway but I suspect it would be tabled
> (delayed) until the following meeting to allow a PNS or something along
> those lines to take place.
> As an aside, the policy docs still say a PNS is required to graduate. If
> this view has changed (I'm not sure it has - I don't recall a
> discussion) then those docs need updating.

I haven't heard of any policy change either, and with that in mind, I am 
-1 (binding) on graduation till a PNS has been resolved. As Mark stated, 
there are costs involved with name changes, on multiple fronts, and 
making sure that we don't clash is quite important.

With that said, there is plenty of time till the next board meeting, a 
PNS _could_ be done in time for that, and I'd remove my -1. :)

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

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

View raw message