This has been the subject of prior conversations, but I'm opening a thread in some hope of reaching a definitive resolution.
Some of our non-graduating podlings have a common problem. They look good in all ways except growth. This inhibits graduation from 2.5 standpoints: 1) they are dubiously large enough to sustain as a TLP. 2) they don't have much (or any) track record in incorporating new contributors. 2.5) they might not be very diverse. I list this as a .5 because I think that we've established that diversity is a lower priority. There are some possible responses to this situation. a) toss them out of the incubator. b) keep them in the incubator indefinitely. c) graduate them, but with some conditions. I'm most interested in (c). I think that the simple condition here is that at least one PMC member, or, possibly, the PMC chair, has to be an Apache participant with significant experience, preferably a foundation member. Essentially, I'm proposing to create a category that has more Foundation supervision than an ordinary TLP, but less than a podling. The advantages of this, in my opinion, is that it removes overhead from the incubator while allowing for slow-growing communities. Or, if you prefer, it's an intermediate between a lab and a TLP. The 'person of long standing' has to be willing to be real member of the PMC, not just an occasional scanner of email -- however enthusiastically he or she plans to bail once the project adds a few more people. All of this is making the assumption that the Foundation, in eliminating Umbrellas, has not lost its appetite for small projects. Since the board is the group that has to deal with the reports and supervision, I end up wondering if the board needs to be asked for a formal opinion here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
