On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> >>> This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times, >>> projects aim for being very successful and have their own healthy >>> community, but that is not always the outcome, and exiting Incubator >>> as an adopted project should be still be a possibility. >> >> I don't think we should exclude incubating projects from being >> incorporated into other projects. It may be preferred to the attic or >> github should a community fail to thrive. The incubator does not need to >> be TLP or fail. >> >> Perhaps the assimilation of an incubating podling to another PMC should >> not be called graduation. Maybe it should be handled piece by piece. >> >> (1) PPMC votes to approach a PMC with Mentor / IPMC approval like for a >> release. > > Please name me a specific example scenario in which #1 has happened at the > ASF without pre stated intent to join that TLP.
I'll give you a possible - If ODFToolkit fails to have a large enough community then two possible TLPs might be willing to assimilate the community - either OpenOffice or POI. It was specifically intended not to be part of OpenOffice, and two of the podling mentors are POI PMC members. > I would be very surprised to see it happen b/c it would imply graduation > into an existing TLP wasn't premeditated. Premeditated by the whole of the Initial Committers? No. A thought by one or two people as a "Plan B"? Yes. A prod to the podling, yes. Each case differs. I can agree that we do not want to encourage new podlings to come in with Plan A to be graduating into an existing TLP, but I don't think we should exclude a future case should it be strong enough to convince the IPMC. Put another way, we should not decide all policy based only on the latest worst case - Hive/HCatalog. Regards, Dave > That's the whole point of the "sponsoring PMC" portion of the Incubator > proposal, from the beginning, to declare > the intent to graduate into a existing TLP - otherwise that section > wouldn't be needed and the answer would always > be Incubator PMC. For the record, since the whole umbrella project thing, > most of the sponsoring (I can name perhaps 1-5) > incoming Incubator podlings are all Incubator PMC sponsored, for intent to > graduate to TLP. > > On the graduating into existing TLP end, I don't think that makes sense - > apparently at least 2 other people don't either judging by +1s and words. > I would like to fix that. But, I don't think I've ever seen #1 where they > haven't already declared that their intent from the beginning. > >> >> (2) Receiving PMC votes to accept IP - if not cleared then it accepts >> that responsibility. > > If PMCs can accept the type of "podling sized" IP contribution then I > think that the Incubator is a pointless committee. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
