incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 06:24:17 GMT
It must be sooo frustrating for new projects coming in. They read the
websites, read the mail archives, talk to loads and loads of people,
and when they think they get it all right they send in a proposal. And
then, more often than not, someone somewhere within the ASF sees
"something" that is somehow wrong, and off we go to institute a new
"rule" on the fly to make the new proposal somehow "invalid".

The latest example is all the debate surrounding whether or not the
"glasgow" name is appropriate. Up until about a week or two ago, it
certainly was accepted practice (just look around), and now 'suddenly'
there's messiness. Its ok if opinions change (we had a loooong debate
a few years ago about "geronimo" as a name and that made it), but it
must be very confusing.

Perhaps we should try and seperate this somewhat more rigidly. Eg we
could have a "released" version of all the things we want a project to
do and/or comply with (this is our website) and we could have an
"in progress" version of the same thing (this is what changes more
rapidly). And *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released"

Interested or concerned ASF members popping up out of the blue every
now and then (Re: the threads on members@ about this) should then be
restricting themselves to discussing the general case, so that specific
ones can be somewhat less contentious at the start, which is probably
quite healthy from a community-building point of view. Communities
starting off ever so slightly irritated at on-the-fly rulemaking seems
an unhealthy thing.

Perhaps we should have two mailing lists.



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

View raw message