On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On 6/21/2010 1:31 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote: >> >> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: >> >>> Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited) >>> impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the >>> Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just >>> wanted to check, thanks guys! >> >> The problem is that none of the Chukwa PMC members have been on any >> Apache PMCs before. My belief is that having training wheels for a bit >> would be a good thing. > > And the podling's committee itself seeks the extra guidance as they become > a self-managing committee, so the mentors all agreed with this proposal. > If anything, it makes checking off the graduation matrix much simpler as > they are already committers, we already have the IP vetting when the code > came into Hadoop. We should obviously re-review the grants and trademark > assignments during incubation. >
I'm not totally convinced by that reasoning, wouldn't it be simpler to just go directly to TLP and have those listed here as mentors agree to help out by being on the initial PMC? If it does incubate what would be delaying its graduation? Its already got everything we list in the incubator docs - diverse committers, done several releases etc. The current proposal doesn't use the incubator naming for the mailing lists and svn location, from past discussions here it should really be using the incubator naming unless its a very special case. Is this a special case? ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
