incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <>
Subject Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Date Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:07:20 GMT

I'll apologize in advance because I will probably sound like a total dick in this email being
that I'm irritated for unrelated reasons at the moment.  Now I'll attempt to steer this beast
of a thread back on course while it's still possible to do so:

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Jochen Wiedmann <> wrote:

> From: Jochen Wiedmann <>
> Subject: Re: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 3:34 AM
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM,
> Niclas Hedhman <>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> > <>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Commons is working *now*. Just as Jakarta was
> working once. But
> >> Commons will most likely no longer work when it is
> growing too much.
> >> And the things discussed here (making Commons the
> target of many new
> >> subprojects, which aren't integrated into Commons,
> thus must likely
> >> will never be) are clearly implying this danger.
> That's not about
> >> external committers. It is about too many
> committers.
> >
> > Ah! I sure can relate to this, but isn't this a
> different issue altogether?
> It possibly is, if my understanding of a "Commons
> Incubator" being
> related to the Commons project is wrong.

I don't see how the potential issue of too many committers relates either.  It is an issue,
but one that is not germane to this conversation as I see it.  Relevant or not, let it now
be known that Commons will not become a dumping ground.  So can we drop this issue and return
to the actual subject at hand?

> > And in what sense would a "permanent commons
> incubation project" help with this?
> It wouldn't. I am opposing such a project.

FTR, the "permanent" part was mostly targeted at the issue of reducing repetitive infra tasks
on behalf of podlings slated to become Commons components.  But the subject of this thread
has changed; "Commons Incubator" is only referenced to show the thread from whence this thread
spun off.  I created the new subject in response to Noel's statement that (paraphrasing) the
IPMC would like to work with Commons to address its valid issues, but that the proposal was
a false start.  This thread pretends such a proposal was never made, and presents Commons'
issues with wide-eyed innocence for suggested solutions.  Since the thread has been thrust
so far off-course I'll restate the situation:

With respect to bringing in new components from preexisting source with new-to-the-ASF committers,
Commons would like to use incubator practices but we are concerned whether the community exit
requirements are achievable for the typical Commons component.

Some possible solutions:

 * Use IP clearance; make authors "earn" commit rights through sustained contribution as though
they were just anybody.  Considered offensive to code donors.

 * Use IP clearance; admit the new committers to Commons and train them there to be good ASF
citizens.  Concerns include culture shock (Commons is accustomed to creating committers out
of sustained contributors) and extra incubation-esque mail traffic on dev@commons (already
shared amongst all components).

 * IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively admitting a graduating
podling as a subproject is of great weight with regard to whether the aggregate community
situation would meet volume + diversity requirements (apologies if this is hard to parse).

Glad to hear other ideas,

> Jochen
> -- 
> I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use
> as my
> telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer
> figure out
> how to use my telephone.
>     -- (Bjarne Stroustrup,
>        My guess: Nokia E50)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


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

View raw message