incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <>
Subject Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:38:38 GMT

Received 3 declarations of intent to -1 (vote not in progress yet) from IPMC members so perhaps
it's time to step back and talk about requirements since the proposed solution seems to sit
unfavorably with several people on this list.  Further commentary below:

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:

> From: Noel J. Bergman <>
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To:
> Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:49 PM
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > Matt Benson <>
> wrote:
> > > The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual
> podling" or
> > > "mini-Incubator" overseeing the influx of
> components to be
> > > adopted into Apache Commons.
> > -1 (vote, not veto).
> -1 from me, at least for now, for the same reasons:
> > If Commons PMC wants to import code, then it can file
> IP clearances.
> > If it wants to incubate communities, then it needs to
> follow the rest
> > of the Incubator procedures.
> That said, we want to work with Apache Commons to address
> its valid issues.
> But the proposal appears to be a false step.

Fair enough.

another Noel quote:
> Keep in mind that Committers in the Incubator are not provisional.
> The projects are, but not the people.  We can definitely talk about
> incubating a project before it moves into Apache Commons, especially
> larger ones.

You say that podling committers are not provisional; I'll turn that around and reword that
as "a committer to a TLP is not 'more real' a committer than a person who only has commit
access to a podling/s.  But in the rare event that the IPMC declares a given incubation "failed"
what happens to those committers?  They're still real committers; they just happen not to
have access to commit to anything?  "I'm an ASF committer."  "Really?  What project do you
work on?"  "Oh, I don't have access to commit to any projects; I just AM a committer."  :P
 That little bit of strangeness aside, I'll try to boil down the situation:

The primary obstacle to Commons using the normal Incubator practices is the community exit
requirements.  We feel that, due to the small size/scope of a Commons component, a podling
graduating into Commons should be able to do so with a minimal community PROVIDED that there
is a total of at least three guardians (to play on the orphan concept) including the podling
committers (becoming full Commons committers, with all that implies) in addition to existing
Commons committers who explicitly declare themselves interested and available to support the
graduating component.

The other issue we had is that it seems a waste of resources to go through the infra side
of incubation for such small components, but that's not much skin off our proverbial nose
in any case...

Can the IPMC agree on a solution to address our issue(s)?


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


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

View raw message