+1 on what Justin said. And I am not affiliated w/ Pivotal in _any_ way. Cos
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:10AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > >> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In > > To be clear, there were conversations with Jim (as VP Legal) prior to > this submission. The ASF wouldn't accept the software grant until the > Incubator approved the proposal. Pivotal wouldn't release it as ALv2 > until the ASF accepted the grant. > > It's a chicken-and-egg problem - seeing the code through the > click-through evaluation license is the least bad scenario that drives > this proposal forward. > > As a mentor unaffiliated with Pivotal, I'm not worried about the > provenance checks - Pivotal is ready to execute the software grant and > release it as ALv2. > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > looking at the list of committers -it looks like a whole organisation is > > going to move to doing OSS dev. That's a pretty big move. > > Yes, it is. I'm confident in my conversations with the Pivotal team > that they fully understand what will be asked of them. However, as a > mentor, the proof will be in the pudding and will be demonstrated > through the Incubation process...or not. > > > 1. The withdrawal of support for Groovy shows that pivotal have been > > ruthless in the past about where to invest their OSS dev. It's a bit > > dangerous to list Groovy as a reference for pivotal's OSS experience. It > > shows they've done it, but it shows that the commitment is not indefinite > > funding (to be fair, no single org can guarantee that). Spring is the one > > to really emphasis. > > Companies are always free to re-evaluate where they spend their time > and resources. I actually view the experience with Groovy as a > positive thing in the macro sense. The point of submitting Geode to > the ASF is to ensure the longevity of the project and community - the > lesson from Groovy is to ensure it is in appropriate foundation that > will care for it. > > > 2. It will make it more of a barrier to getting other developers in; it'll > > take active effort to bring them in, especially a transition to a process > > of decision making over the lists, rather than in meetings. Again, a > > perennial problem that we all encounter -not an argument against the > > proposal, just something that will take active effort. > > This is why we have an Incubator. =) > > > I don't see it leaving incubation with more non-pivotal dev/contrib than > > the pivotal team, just because of the numbers. The mentors/vote will have > > to consider how many external developers constitutes "enough" to be an > > active, open dev community. Again, a permanent problem (*), it just means > > here that it will be very skewed towards pivotal. I think that open-source > > discussion and decision making should be a key metric here, rather than > > just looking at numbers. > > Fully agreed for exit criteria, but let's get it in first! -- justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
