incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 06:00:37 GMT
> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 23:24 -0700, Leo Simons wrote:
>> <rant>
>> 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".

+1 - this is a very confusing situation and unlike almost every other
project.  Typically, you read the last few months threads to get an idea
of where things are at and how to 'slide into the conversation'.  Here,
that's likely to backfire :(  And in part, I blame side conversations on
the members channel etc; when that list comes to a conclusion, it really
aught to be posted here for all to know.

>> 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

Agreed, and +1; I can't find a reason to not accept this name under our
established practice; if it should change then fine, let the project
decide that.  It's a -place name-.  Not a person/culture issue.

>> *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released" one*.

As a general practice, +1

>> Communities starting off ever so slightly irritated at on-the-fly
>> rulemaking seems an unhealthy thing.

Unfortunately this is partly inevitable, because the rules that get
toggled may not come from general@, but discussions on other forums.
Hopefully the folks who point out what rule was tripped over point out
why it's a rule, and why for a project to come out healthy, it should
be addressed up front, or in incubation.

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> +1 for another list for proposal submissions- proposal@incubator.a.o and
> for this to remain for the current purpose.

-1 to that; it makes it even -harder- for incoming participants to follow
which list says what and how the incubator operates.

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

View raw message