Apex has done very well during incubation, and I believe is ready to graduate. As a mentor, I will double check a few things, but I will support the move to a TLP.
-Taylor > On Mar 18, 2016, at 10:12 PM, Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have addressed the items that were brought up during the initial > graduation discussion. > > The next step would be preparation of resolution and community vote. > > I think it is time for Apex to graduate and become a top level project. > What's your take? > > Thanks, > Thomas > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Sasha Parfenov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Following up an earlier question by Justin, I have verified that all >> contributors to original docs repository are covered by ICLA. See comments >> in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-293 for details. >> >> Thanks, >> Sasha >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> That's a good point. Maybe defer this until the last possible moment >>> before launching the IPMC vote. It's unlikely that you'll change the >>> committer or PMC roster during the vote, so that ought to reduce the >>> likelihood of double maintenance burden. >>> >>> --Chris Nauroth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 1/27/16, 11:36 PM, "Thomas Weise" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> Thanks, this is very helpful. I have created tickets for these items >> (hope >>>> you don't mind I made you the reporter): >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql >>>> =project%20%3D%20APEXCORE%20and%20labels%20%3D%20tlp >>>> >>>> I was under the impression that the "Who We Are" page should be setup at >>>> time of graduation to replace the information on the status page. But if >>>> it >>>> is best practice, we will do the double maintenance ;-) >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Chris Nauroth < >> [email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree that it's good to start the graduation discussion, pending >>>>> resolution of the documentation and release items mentioned by other >>>>> mentors in the thread. I've been very impressed with this community's >>>>> level of activity and openness. >>>>> >>>>> I took a pass through the maturity model, and I'd like to call out the >>>>> items that may need additional work. I also have pointed out examples >>>>> of >>>>> how an existing project meets these criteria. (I used Hadoop, because >>>>> it's the project I know best.) >>>>> >>>>> This exercise is best done as a self-evaluation by the most involved >>>>> contributors, so it's possible that my perspective is incomplete. I >>>>> encourage more of the deeply involved community members to review the >>>>> maturity model in detail and draw their own conclusions. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I want to make sure it's clear that the maturity model is not an >>>>> absolute list of requirements. It is the community's choice on >> whether >>>>> or >>>>> not to address these points before a graduation proposal. However, >> some >>>>> IPMC members do use the maturity model as a checklist to gauge the >>>>> health >>>>> of a podling, so you'll bolster your case for graduation with the >> wider >>>>> IPMC if you choose to take action on them. I also think all of these >>>>> things are generally good for the project anyway, so it's not just a >>>>> matter of satisfying bureaucratic demands. >>>>> >>>>> QU30 >>>>> The project provides a well-documented channel to report security >>>>> issues, >>>>> along with a documented way of responding to them. >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't find a security vulnerability process documented at >>>>> apex.incubator.apache.org. Example: >>>>> http://hadoop.apache.org/mailing_lists.html >>>>> >>>>> QU40 >>>>> The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility and aims >> to >>>>> document any incompatible changes and provide tools and documentation >> to >>>>> help users transition to new features. >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't find backwards-compatibility guidelines documented at >>>>> apex.incubator.apache.org. Example: >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.7.2/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Co >>>>> mp >>>>> atibility.html >>>>> >>>>> CS10 >>>>> The project maintains a public list of its contributors who have >>>>> decision >>>>> power -- the project's PMC (Project Management Committee) consists of >>>>> those contributors. >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't find a "Who We Are" page at apex.incubator.apache.org. I >>>>> think >>>>> the information is accurate in the incubation status page though. >>>>> Example: https://hadoop.apache.org/who.html >>>>> >>>>> CS30 >>>>> Documented voting rules are used to build consensus when discussion is >>>>> not >>>>> sufficient. >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't find any statement of this. Example: >>>>> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --Chris Nauroth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/25/16, 2:28 PM, "Sandesh Hegde" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Code: CD50 >>>>>> Licenses and Copyright: LC50 >>>>>> Quality: QU50 >>>>>> Community: CO50 >>>>>> Independence: IN20 >>>>>> Releases: RE40 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:09 PM Justin Mclean >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It¹s not required but you might want to rate yourself with this [1] >>>>>>> like a >>>>>>> few other projects have done. [2][3] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Justin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. >> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.htm >>>>>>> l >>>>>>> 2. https://zest.apache.org/community/maturity.html >>>>>>> 3. >> https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/576b3c5d6a7022ac4a8df1ef118666456ce >>>>>>> 627fb/MATURITY.adoc >>
