On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Tom White <tom.e.wh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andrei Savu <savu.and...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Tom do you want to be a champion for this proposal? > > Yes, I'd be happy to. > > One thing I think is worth discussing more here is whether Provisionr > should be a TLP on graduation, or whether it should be a module in > Whirr.
Well, that puts this proposal into a gray area. In case you haven't been reading all the traffic on this list, I'll give a quick summary here. Historically, the Foundation had 'subprojects', and the the incubator hosted podlings intended, eventually, to become subprojects of existing TLPs. We don't do that anymore. If Provisionr becomes part of Whir, it just becomes, well, part of Whir. That raises the question of what you need the incubator for if this is your goal. There's a pretty simple alternative. The existing Provisionr team works with Whir to do an IP grant of the code to the Foundation. The existing team submits ICLAs. Whir makes a branch or other distinctive tree in source control and grants the Provisionr team commit access _to that tree_. Over time, the Provisionr people earn full committer status by merit, and appropriate adjustments are made to the tree structure. Given the state of the conversation about policy on this subject, I think it would be reasonable to ask you all to talk to the Whir people about this, and see if you an all come to an agreement for something like this in parallel with a discussion here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
