incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
Date Thu, 16 Apr 2015 04:48:45 GMT
+1 on what Justin said. And I am not affiliated w/ Pivotal in _any_ way.


On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:10AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in.  In
> To be clear, there were conversations with Jim (as VP Legal) prior to
> this submission.  The ASF wouldn't accept the software grant until the
> Incubator approved the proposal.  Pivotal wouldn't release it as ALv2
> until the ASF accepted the grant.
> It's a chicken-and-egg problem - seeing the code through the
> click-through evaluation license is the least bad scenario that drives
> this proposal forward.
> As a mentor unaffiliated with Pivotal, I'm not worried about the
> provenance checks - Pivotal is ready to execute the software grant and
> release it as ALv2.
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Steve Loughran <> wrote:
> > looking at the list of committers -it looks like a whole organisation is going to
move to doing OSS dev. That's a pretty big move.
> Yes, it is.  I'm confident in my conversations with the Pivotal team
> that they fully understand what will be asked of them.  However, as a
> mentor, the proof will be in the pudding and will be demonstrated
> through the Incubation process...or not.
> > 1. The withdrawal of support for Groovy shows that pivotal have been ruthless in
the past about where to invest their OSS dev. It's a bit dangerous to list Groovy as a reference
for pivotal's OSS experience. It shows they've done it, but it shows that the commitment is
not indefinite funding (to be fair, no single org can guarantee that). Spring is the one to
really emphasis.
> Companies are always free to re-evaluate where they spend their time
> and resources.  I actually view the experience with Groovy as a
> positive thing in the macro sense.  The point of submitting Geode to
> the ASF is to ensure the longevity of the project and community - the
> lesson from Groovy is to ensure it is in appropriate foundation that
> will care for it.
> > 2. It will make it more of a barrier to getting other developers in; it'll take
active effort to bring them in, especially a transition to a process of decision making over
the lists, rather than in meetings. Again, a perennial problem that we all encounter -not
an argument against the proposal, just something that will take active effort.
> This is why we have an Incubator.  =)
> > I don't see it leaving incubation with more non-pivotal dev/contrib than the pivotal
team, just because of the numbers. The mentors/vote will have to consider how many external
developers constitutes "enough" to be an active, open dev community. Again, a permanent problem
(*), it just means here that it will be very skewed towards pivotal. I think that open-source
discussion and decision making should be a key metric here, rather than just looking at numbers.
> Fully agreed for exit criteria, but let's get it in first!  -- justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message