My only concern is now the mentor(s) need to check everything before approving. In my experience, during the early stages of the releases, lot of the license, naming, release location, etc. related issues were identified during the approval in the general@ list. Which were very helpful to us.
Knowing that the mentors are generally busy, it might be good to have an extra oversight. >Take a poll among podlings and ask "Do you want to be more autonomous >from the IPMC?" and see what they say... We should qualify what "autonomous" means here. Thanks Bosco On 7/26/15, 8:06 AM, "Niclas Hedhman" <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: >On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The only downside of this proposal is that it assumes that every podling >> has at least three active (!) mentors. > >No, I don't necessarily mean that you need 3 mentors either. One active >mentor would be fine with me. Empower the podling to stand on its own >feet. >The Incubation disclaimers are plenty warning, otherwise it would be full >releases. > >Take a poll among podlings and ask "Do you want to be more autonomous from >the IPMC?" and see what they say... > >Cheers >-- >Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer >http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
