I think the business about numbers of committers and how additions to the community are cultivated is a sniff test concerning sustainability. The idea is to have some sense that there is a sustainable community in place and that there is as much attention on nurturing that sustainability as there is in code wrangling.
Being able to produce releases is also a related consideration that has a sustainability component. How is release manager rotation handled? Is there release-manager rotation? (Not graduation criteria, AFAIK, but a similar concern and perhaps not quite the right terms for Groovy.) What these mean in practice depends a lot on what the scope of the project is, of course. My very limited experience with two podlings suggests that this all gets worked out in incubation (at least in terms of the direction to continue as a TLP), not before incubation. Attention to these considerations most definitely does not end at graduation, either. -----Original Message----- From: Paul King [mailto:pa...@asert.com.au] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 03:17 To: Bertrand Delacretaz; Incubator General Cc: Cédric Champeau; Jochen Theodorou; pascalschumacher; Guillaume Laforge Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal I would have thought that graduation would be all about showing that whatever list of committers we have (big or small) is working well? Having a large number of committers certainly makes sense with a subversion mindset but it's possibly an anti-pattern with a DVCS mindset (at least for a stable language in any case)? The Groovy community has always valued the actual code contribution more than who the person was who contributedthe code. I hope we can continue in that fashion. Obviously, there are logistics concerns, you need enough committers to handle the administrative tasks involved (and that will change with less full-time people contributing on that side perhaps), so we should expect changes. And, the voting is a bit different to what we have done in the past, so making that work well will be important too. I just hope we are targeting a working system rather than some magic number of committers. Cheers, Paul. On 12/03/2015 7:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:08 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> ...The proposal talks several places about a vibrant community and the >> initial >> commiters are only 5... > > As others have said this was discussed while preparing the proposal. I > also agree that it's fine to include only the "core" Groovy committers > to enter incubation, as usual it will be their task to grow that > community before graduating. > > The alternative would be to start with a huge list of initial > committers ("everybody who contributed more than X to Groovy") and > before graduating reduce it to the list of people who actually > contributed during incubation, but that's much more work IMO. > > -Bertrand > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
