incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: [RT] Learning from the facts ( Re: Undermining the Incubator )
Date Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:20:26 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> >* Hurts already healthy communities by putting them back into an alphaish
> >state.
> ...
> > If I had a mature project ready for production which had been so for
> > a number of years and then I said "I want to be part of Apache"....  You'd
> > put it in the "incubator" and tell the world it needed incubation?  Pretty
> > ugly perception that pushes about a mature project.
> I'd like everyone to think about this comment, as it has been said 
> basically by all projects coming through the Incubator, in one way or 
> the other. OTOMH the last have been Axion and Logging projects.
> MHO is that we do not require that a project be "under" the Incubator 
> urls and resources. This was said to ensure that they don't misuse the 
> "regular" Apache brand, but if it remains "outside" of Apache during 
> Incubation, the problem is equally solved.
> One thing is having access to the Incubator for the status file and 
> creating Apache resources, which has to be done, and another is making 
> the project "operate" under these same resources during Incubation, 
> which is not necessary.
> What do others think?

It was never my impression that projects were forced to move their stuff
to the incubator web site, but merely that these resources were made
available to them if they so wished.

I'm still completely unclear what objection Andy is raising. He seems to
say that being put in the incubator gives an ugly impression because it
gives an ugly impression. I'm not clear what "ugly impression" is being
given, unless we are completely misrepresenting to "the world" what the
incubator is for. (Which is, of course, a very real possibility, given
the misconceptions that obviously exist.)

When a skilled worker goes to work for a new company, they go through a
period of probation to ensure that they fit in the new company. This
does not question their skills, it merely ensures that the person fits
into the new company.

We're not saying that the project is *not* mature, we are simply
verifying that it *is*.

Is this about the name "incubator", or is there more to it than that?

Yes, we should take very seriously the feedback of the folks that have
been through this process, and we should evolve based on that feedback.

Perhaps a practical solution here is to strongly encourage mature
projects to remain entirely outside the Apache infrastructure during
this period. That allows them to continue functioning as a mature
project, and not in any way be hindered by the move until such time as
there is a recognizable benefit to moving.

Rich Bowen -
Author - Apache Server Unleashed -

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

View raw message