incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Uniform Project Procedures
Date Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:48:19 GMT

On Feb 13, 2007, at 6:03 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Curt Arnold wrote:
>> msg12442.html)
>> suggest to me that it may be good for the Incubator project to  
>> oversee a
>> collaboration to produce a Uniform Project Procedures that podlings,
>> newly graduated projects and established projects could adopt in  
>> whole
>> or in part.
> Tweak 2 things please.... they aren't Procedures - those are whatever
> suits the project at the current time...
> please substitute Policies (which are also dynamic but established,  
> guiding
> principals) which is what every ASF project has had forever (even  
> if they
> didn't really pay attention to the fact that they were following  
> established
> traditions as policy).

I have no attachment to the name and I like policies better.  It does  
broaden the scope to non-procedural issues so we could address  
statements of condition as well.

> And these should be the Uniform Policies which already exist at
> - I'm not suggesting they are complete, we
> should definitely help to flush them out.

I see as the equivalent of US Federal Law  
in the analogy.  There is a body of policy that is promulgated by the  
Board to which all projects within ASF must adhere, lets call that  
"Apache Policy".  The body of "Apache Policy" covers license policy,  
source header policy, etc.  Then there are areas where the PMC are  
allowed to establish their own policy, however it benefits the  
community if the PMC-level policies are relatively consistent.  The  
Uniform Project Policies would exist to address issues outside of  
Apache Policy and could be adopted or ignored by PMC's at their  
will.  Ideally, the UPP would be suitable for almost all of the  
podlings to accept in whole.

> Projects at graduation should either have a commitment to follow them
> in whole; or have a written set of policies which are deliberately  
> updated
> to suit that project.

I think that would lead to a cut-and-paste policies.  For example, if  
the UPP established a procedure for the election of new committers,  
the Harmony PMC may decide that it needs to add a requirement that  
the committer has signed a document stating their exposure to the Sun  
Java implementation.  I think it would be beneficial if the Harmony  
PMC could just state that it adopts the UPP 1.0 with the additional  
requirement that new committers have signed the disclosure document,  
instead of having to replace that entire procedure or duplicate the UPP.

> Good thought, I think we are already closer than you suspected, and  
> I think
> your idea to flush them out is also goodness.

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

View raw message