incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2016 22:44:00 GMT
On 11/08/2016 11:43 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Besides, last time I checked there's no such thing as "diversity requirement"
> in the graduation.  It is indeed being asked here and there, but so far it
> isn't an official IPMC requirement.

It's very prominently displayed in our graduation guideline.

> And I'd hate to make a "diversity scape-goat" out of the project that has
> created a very welcome environment!
> Cos
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:14PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <>
>>>>>> I was looking at Snoot, and some figures jumped at me.
>>>>>> Is the Podling (and the IPMC) satisfied that there is no concern
>>>>>> people affiliated with a single company providing more than 90% of
>>>>>> commits over the past year and, as far as I can tell, the vast majority
>>>>>> of tickets and email, as well as a 73% stake in the proposed PMC?
>>>>>> Is the IPMC satisfied that, should this company opt to not further
>>>>>> resources on this project, that the project would still be as viable?
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>> I've observed this project since it joined the incubator and they've worked
>>>> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all the issues
>>>> raised that could be barriers to their graduation.
>>>> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously in
>>>> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm not going to
>>>> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better with
>>>> served with a wider community, but I think what matters is 1) have they
>>>> demonstrated the behaviors we expect and 2) are they moving in the right
>>>> direction. Geode is a great community and a pleasure to be involved with
>>>> and I would say yes to both of these. I believe they are going in the right
>>>> direction to make this project less dependent on one company and except to
>>>> change the percentages you've pointed out, theres no purpose left for them
>>>> being in the incubator. They've shown that they can manage themselves and
>>>> theres enough independent oversight to mitigate concerns which is why I
>>>> think we should vote for them to graduate.
>>> Given the discussions around single-vendor projects that are raging on
>>> board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects that
>>> are heavily dominated by a single vendor/company/organization
>>> historically cause problems over time.
>> I think that other discussion addresses a very different set of problems.
>>> Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated?
>> I'd rather flip your argument around and say: at this point sitting in the
>> Incubator adds no value to the project nor does it teach anything
>> new or useful to its PPMC or a community at large.
>>> Surely we serve the
>>> Foundation, and this project, better, by ensuring that this problem
>>> (and, yes, it's a problem) is addressed before we grant them TLP status?
>> I disagree. The Incubator is a place to make sure that the community
>> (regardless of its composition) truly understands and practices the
>> "Apache Way". As has been suggested on this thread by a number of
>> votes from project's mentors and IPMC members embedded in the
>> Geode community that mission has been accomplished.
>> I see no reason to hold the project hostage over the diversity requirement
>> simply because it is pointless for IPMC, project and the foundation.
>>> I'm personally less concerned with the sustainability of the project
>>> should the company opt out of working on the project, and more concerned
>>> with the kind of monoculture "we own it" problems that we're starting to
>>> see crop up in other projects that were allowed to graduate without
>>> building the community first.
>> Then you really should be voting "yes" on this thread. There's a good number
>> of us on IPMC who believe that "we own it" is really not a problem with this
>> community.
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message