incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Flavio Junqueira <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] S4 for the Apache Incubator
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:21:59 GMT
Hi Phillip, Thanks for your feedback, see some more comments below:

On Sep 16, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:

>> Our expectation when we submitted the proposal was that the initial  
>> set of
>> committers would comprise the people who have initially contributed  
>> to get
>> the current code to this stage, and we were not expecting arbitrary  
>> requests
>> to join the initial list of committers.
> Part of the focus of the incubator, as I've understood it, is to
> promote sufficient
> diversity in the community and the team, that no one "block" of  
> people can kill
> the project by dropping out or whatever.  Having new initial
> committers that have
> no outstanding connection to the project is one way to achieve that.
> In this regard, the
> incubation period is radically different from other times in the
> project lifecycle.
> Or, again, that has been my understanding.

I tend to agree with this observation that it is important to increase  
diversity when the initial group is too homogeneous. However, I don't  
see this risk with the group we proposed originally, we are coming  
from different companies, and our interests converge to S4, but  
overall I would say that our motivations are pretty different.

> Then again, maybe it only appears that way because some projects make
> it a point to
> appeal to people *to* join in as initial committers.
>> Of course, as a potential Apache
>> project (now potentially incubator, but looking forward to being  
>> TLP in the
>> future), we are ready to work towards building a community, which  
>> includes
>> granting the status of committer to contributors. However, we'd  
>> like new
>> committers to earn their status by showing commitment to the  
>> community and
>> demonstrating technical merit.
> Absolutely, and entering the incubator is the only time - AFAIK -  
> that projects
> here tend to take a slightly different stance.  It's all about seeding
> the initial pool
> before the project gets underway.   That said, I'm not sure projects
> are required
> to accept an additional initial committers beyond what the proposer  
> suggests.

To emphasize, just in the case it was not extra clear in the previous  
message, it is not that we don't want new committers, but our  
preference, assuming it doesn't go against the principles stated by  
the community, is to grant committership status once we get to work a  
little longer together.

> For my own part, I'll just say that I'm excited about S4, very happy
> to volunteer to help, and
> if you guys want me, I'm in.  If not, take me off the list and it'll
> all be cool.  FSM knows, I have
> plenty of stuff to keep me occupied already.  ;-)

I'm sure you're busy and have other things to do, but that was not the  
point. We want to get all help we can to make sure S4 succeeds in  
building a strong community. We just feel that committership is a  
separate issue and should be earned.

> As far as introduction goes...  Well, I founded Fogbeam Labs, started
> the ScrewPile project to
> develop an OSS suite of Enterprise Knowledge Management software.
> I've been a professional
> software engineer for the past 12-13 years, working mostly in Java,
> but some C, C++, Python
> and Groovy as well.  If anyone wants to know more about me, just ask,
> or see:

Thanks again, Phillip. We are looking forward to working with you, so  
please consider contributing independent of the committership issue.


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

View raw message