On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> > I was looking at Snoot, and some figures jumped at me. >>> > >>> > Is the Podling (and the IPMC) satisfied that there is no concern with >>> > people affiliated with a single company providing more than 90% of all >>> > commits over the past year and, as far as I can tell, the vast majority >>> > of tickets and email, as well as a 73% stake in the proposed PMC? >>> > >>> > Is the IPMC satisfied that, should this company opt to not further spend >>> > resources on this project, that the project would still be as viable? >>> > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I've observed this project since it joined the incubator and they've worked >> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all the issues >> raised that could be barriers to their graduation. >> >> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously in >> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm not going to >> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better with >> served with a wider community, but I think what matters is 1) have they >> demonstrated the behaviors we expect and 2) are they moving in the right >> direction. Geode is a great community and a pleasure to be involved with >> and I would say yes to both of these. I believe they are going in the right >> direction to make this project less dependent on one company and except to >> change the percentages you've pointed out, theres no purpose left for them >> being in the incubator. They've shown that they can manage themselves and >> theres enough independent oversight to mitigate concerns which is why I >> think we should vote for them to graduate. > > Given the discussions around single-vendor projects that are raging on > board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects that > are heavily dominated by a single vendor/company/organization > historically cause problems over time.
I think that other discussion addresses a very different set of problems. > Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated? I'd rather flip your argument around and say: at this point sitting in the Incubator adds no value to the project nor does it teach anything new or useful to its PPMC or a community at large. > Surely we serve the > Foundation, and this project, better, by ensuring that this problem > (and, yes, it's a problem) is addressed before we grant them TLP status? I disagree. The Incubator is a place to make sure that the community (regardless of its composition) truly understands and practices the "Apache Way". As has been suggested on this thread by a number of votes from project's mentors and IPMC members embedded in the Geode community that mission has been accomplished. I see no reason to hold the project hostage over the diversity requirement simply because it is pointless for IPMC, project and the foundation. > I'm personally less concerned with the sustainability of the project > should the company opt out of working on the project, and more concerned > with the kind of monoculture "we own it" problems that we're starting to > see crop up in other projects that were allowed to graduate without > building the community first. Then you really should be voting "yes" on this thread. There's a good number of us on IPMC who believe that "we own it" is really not a problem with this community. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
