incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Cabrera <>
Subject Wrapping it up: Retirement decision making
Date Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:13:33 GMT
If no one minds I think it would be a good idea for the docs to be updated with our new common
understanding.  What I propose is for for a wiki page with the new wording to be created for
us to comment/vote on.  I'm happy to consolidate the current thinking on this.

Also, I'm too lazy to troll through the list to collect the two new additional mentors for
Chukwa, I think that it was Ant and Jukka.  Can Ant and Jukka confirm?


On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

> The current vote thread for retirement of Chukwa, coupled with some of
> the other discussion threads, raises some questions that need to be
> resolved.
> How do we make retirement decisions?
> says:
> "Before following the retirement steps, the remaining developers of
> the project should be informed and vote should happen on the projects
> dev list. After the vote, the IPMC must vote on the general list to
> retire the project.
> In some cases the developers of a project might be opposed to
> retirement, while the IPMC is in favour because its members cannot see
> a succesfull graduation now or in future. In this case the IPMC
> _decides_ about the retirement."
> In general, Apache projects strive to reach decisions by consensus,
> using votes to memorialize consensus.
> In the Chukwa case, there seems to have been a consensus some months
> ago about how things would proceed. However, I don't think it's
> reasonable to view that decision as a self-operating process in which
> the community pre-decided exactly how and when the plug would be
> pulled. Actually deciding to retire the project, over the objections
> of even one of its contributors, is a decision point that the
> community has to cope with -- however frustrating this may be for
> mentors.
> So, in hindsight, it would have been good to have a [DISCUSS] thread
> in which the mentors could present their view, Eric could argue back,
> and other people could pose questions of clarification. If people
> really want to compare to Wink, someone could do the necessary
> slogging to bring forth real comparative data for Wink.
> But let's imagine that we have a DISCUSS thread and a clear lack of
> consensus. In essence, that's what the current [VOTE] thread amounts
> to. Now what? Do we say, 'well, in the absence of consensus, we must
> continue the podling'? Do we say this even in the absence of enough
> mentors willing to supervise it?
> I stupidly posted an initial version of this question to private@, and
> Ross replied with some very clear thinking on this, which I trust that
> he will re-send to this thread. I'll stop here and wait for that.
> --benson
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message