--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> wrote:
> From: Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com>
> Subject: RE: Commons issues WAS RE: [PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:30 AM
> Matt Benson wrote:
>
> > I'll apologize in advance because I will probably
> sound like a total dick
> in this email being
> > that I'm irritated for unrelated reasons at the
> moment.
>
> LOL Sorry to hear it, but I must have missed the part where
> you were so
> acting.
>
I felt like my tone might have been a little "short" below:
> > let it now be known that Commons will not become a
> dumping ground.
> > So can we drop this issue and return to the actual
> subject at hand?
>
> I hope so. We *all* seem to be in violent agreement
> on the subject.
>
> > the "permanent" part was mostly targeted at the issue
> of reducing
> repetitive infra tasks on behalf of podlings
> > slated to become Commons components.
>
> I am, for the moment, dismissing the infra issues.
> Not that I am missing
> the point, but becaue we already have a very old precedent
> for it: the
> projects@ mailing list. So we can probably adopt a
> similar approach with
> Commons.
>
I am not familiar with this...
> > I created the new subject in response to Noel's
> statement that
> (paraphrasing) the IPMC would
> > like to work with Commons to address its valid issues,
> but that the
> proposal was a false start.
>
> > With respect to bringing in new components from
> preexisting source with
> new-to-the-ASF committers,
> > Commons would like to use incubator practices but we
> are concerned whether
> the community exit
> > requirements are achievable for the typical Commons
> component.
>
> Should not be, no. Consider your comment:
>
> > IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP
> prospectively admitting
> a graduating podling
> > as a subproject is of great weight with regard to
> whether the aggregate
> community situation
> > would meet volume + diversity requirements (apologies
> if this is hard to
> parse).
>
> That's long settled. :-) If a PMC votes that
> they are going to take
> collective responsibility for a project, we have always
> considered that to
> resolve the diveristy requirement.
I hadn't seen any canon to the effect, beyond one somewhat noncommittal quote
from Leo S. in 2005 when Hen was working on bringing [csv] in. By the way,
that project AFAICT came through IP clearance with no bundled committers and
continues to languish in the sandbox. :|
>
> Components intended for Commons should come through
> Incubation, but
> depending on the nature of the offering and the
> desire/willingness of
> Commons:
>
> 1) Use IP clearance; admit the new committers to Commons
> and train them
> there to be good ASF citizens, alongside their Commons
> peers.
>
> 2) Bring them through Incubation, as we've done (for
> example) with
> Sanselan.
Overall I think approach #2 is most in tune with what the Commons community
wants to see.
>
> Do we agree? Is there anything unsettled except for
> the infra issue?
As we've really done nothing but clarify intent wrt community exit requirements
I feel that it's safe for me to accept this as our resolution on behalf of
Commons. I think all interested PMC members are tuned in anyway. So what's
the deal with the projects@ ML?
Thanks all,
Matt
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
