On [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russel (SUN) agreed that a software grant is fine.
-M On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is fine here. My main reason for the incubator list was > just b/c this project > was completely developed offline. So, it is (to me) a new project. That's all. > > For me, a software grant would be pretty much enough. > > -M > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's great that people are thinking carefully about the right way to handle >> this new code. But after some pondering, I'm happy for it to go directly >> into a sandbox here and not through the incubator. >> >> My reasons are: >> >> Incubation is necessary when a brand-new project is created, in order to be >> sure that a new non-apache development group learn to use apache-style >> collaboration. But that's not relevant in this case; Werner is familiar with >> all this and I'l confident he will make sure everything happens in the open. >> >> Incubation is also necessary when the code is for an existing project but >> that existing project doesn't have committers that will review/commit >> patches for the new code and doesn't want to grant new unknown people commit >> rights immediately. But again that's not relevant here; Werner will >> presumably be acting as reviewer for patches. >> >> So all we need to be concerned about here is that the code is legally >> unencumbered (a grant should do that), and that there is enough of a >> community to maintain it long term (which some time in the sandbox can >> test). And of course that we're all happy with the architecture etc. But for >> that we need to see the code :-) >> >> I can't see any other reasons for requiring incubation... >> >> Definitely worth asking the incubator group their opinion too, but hopefully >> they just push it back to us.. >> >> Regards, Simon >> >> Martin Marinschek schrieb: >>> >>> Yes, definitely incubator should be kept in the loop. But I feel a >>> Grant should be enough, if it is part of the sandbox. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On 7/7/08, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Well best probably is to ask there, but I dont think there should >>>>> be too much of a problem of getting it in directly without >>>>> having to go through the incubator, due to the nature of the code being >>>>> developed 100% by me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am fine with that. But I just want to make sure everything is fine >>>> and correct with the Apache guidelines. Since the scope of the >>>> contribution is a (to my understanding) separate project. Perhaps >>>> a software grant is pretty fine. Perhaps even that is not needed. >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong. I am not against this >>>> (I was pinged offline already asking "why"). >>>> So, again I am not against it. I just want to make sure >>>> we follow the right way. >>>> >>>> -M >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, IMO the best is to give a heads-up on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. >>>>>> So see, what their feeling is about this. They deal with these type of >>>>>> things more frequently than everybody of us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Generally, I think it is a good project. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
