On 30/10/2015 14:17, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 10/30/15 5:33 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 30/10/2015 00:42, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> This is a VOTE to accept the code discussed in [1] and available for >>> review using the git commands below. All are welcome to vote, votes >>> from PMC members are binding. Assuming a positive vote, we will >>> execute a software grant with the authors and use the code as the >>> basis for a new Commons Sandbox component. >>> >>> This VOTE will close in 72 hours. More discussion on the code and >>> its fit in Commons is always welcome, but please do not reply to >>> this thread with discussion, other than embedded justification for >>> negative VOTES. Use the thread from [1] instead. >>> >>> Git commands to grab the code: >>> >>> git clone g...@github.com:NormanShapiro/Naomi.git >>> git checkout gh-pages >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Phil >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/imoi5aipf63f7rsa >>> >>> [ ] +1 Yes! >>> [ ] +0 OK... >>> [ ] -0 OK, but... >>> [X] -1 We should not do this, because... >> The Commons sandbox should not be used as a replacement for / way to >> bypass the Apache Incubator. > > I don't see this as a case of that, as there are Commons committers > (self included) interested in working on this code in Commons.
Who, exactly? I ask because the list of people from Commons who intend to get involved in this has a very strong influence on whether I think this should go via the incubator or not. I'm a little concerned - based on the minimal input on the dev list from the original contributors - that this is more of a code dump than a code contribution. > If you and others insist, we will do the side trip through the > Incubator, but I do not see it as necessary, nor consistent with > what we have done with other code brought in through the sandbox. I appreciate that. I don't want to put unnecessary hurdles in the way but neither do I want to see essential processes (IP clearance, branding etc. bypassed). > For me, the litmus test on bringing externally sourced code into the > Sandbox (or [math] or any other component) is are there ASF > committers interested and willing to work on it and grow a community > around it. I set the bar higher for a new component. I'm particularly looking at how many ASF members (i.e. people who grok how the ASF is meant to operate) are involved. > I see the likelihood of healthy growth around the Naomi > code base higher starting in Commons than the Incubator. I tend to agree with you but, with the emphasis on the healthy aspect, I'd like more detail on who plans to get involved. > I am > personally interested in working on this code. There appear to be > others as well. My cycles and energy for administrivia are limited, > so I would appreciate some flexibility on this. On the other hand, > I respect alternative views and if the consensus is we have to side > trip through the Incubator, we will do that. My vote is not set in stone. More detail on who plans to be involved is likely to change it. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
