> The merits of the particular proposal aside
We should always be judging the merits of each proposal. Failing to do so
might well be part of the problem.
> I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
> low bar for access to the Apache brand name
And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the
Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make
the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different.
And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules.
> Unless we are very careful, Incubator will become a much
> larger mess than the Jakarta project
Unlike, Jakarta, the Incubator scales better --- at least in theory ---
since we require at least one Member or Officer to be providing active
oversight of each project, and the Incubator PMC consists of all of those
mentors, plus others. If that fails, we need to review the situation. If
we cannot find a Member or Officer willing to provide that active oversight,
we won't be able to incubate that project. This means that when some other
PMC votes for the ASF to Incubate a project, they must provide such a person
to perform the oversight. Else we will not accept the project. Voting for
us to accept a project, without providing that oversight, would be
irresponsible and won't be accepted.
We should also make sure that our projects understand the importance of
oversight, and notify the Incubator PMC if those providing oversight go
AWOL. The PPMC should be a vital part of Incubation.
And we require quarterly reports from all of our projects to keep track of
what is happening, which addresses Rob's question.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
