The suggestion is to add it to the proposal template - that's before incubation starts.
-----Original Message----- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:49 PM To: general-incubator <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Nobody is forcing anything. > > > > > > Personally, I am saying RTC is destructive, and am willing to give > every > > > podling that message. > > > > If it is truly destructive, SHOULDN'T you/we be trying to force > > something? And if not, doesn't that mean that it isn't really all > > that destructive? > > > > I believe that I represent a minority position, so no... I'm not going > to suggest changes. I wish to forestall more projects falling into the > RTC trap, but (at the moment) don't believe that it makes sense to > attempt to apply mandates against RTC upon existing communities. > > > > As a Director, would you consider stop approving reports from ASF > > projects that operate under a RTC model? If not, aren't you sending > > a mixed message? > > > > I have thought about this, yes. Maybe add a question to the proposal > template, on what form they're thinking about (and where I could > debate the proposal against RTC). And maybe debate podlings who want > to graduate under RTC. > I think this is too late - if you want to debate it, then it needs to be when projects enter incubation. By the time they're ready to graduate then (presumably) things are already going well and theres less impetus to change. Niall > But as a Director, if the community is producing releases, then I find > it difficult to point to RTC as a problem for that community. It is an > unprovable position: there is no way to state their community could be > better off under CTR. > > > > > > - Sam Ruby > > > > P.S. To be clear: I am not a fan of RTC when applied to > > release.next branches. > > > I'd appreciate your explanation of this, as "most" CTR communities > apply RTC to a branch as they prepare a release. What disturbs you > about this approach? > > Cheers, > -g >
