So personally I think its great to get input from current podlings on a subject like this.
I've made some proposed changes on a separate thread, but I almost think between your comments and Roman's comments... should we just drop the current "policy" document and make the guides the policy documents? There shouldn't be opinions on what makes a functioning podling, it should be pretty cut and dry: - public discussions - apache licensed code - made successful releases without issues - using ASF infra resources On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 4:17 PM Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > One way to make The Guide clearer is to make The Policy more accurate. > As it is, The Policy is contradicted in various other places on the > lists or in the guide or in practice, so as a person who is trying to > understand what incubation and graduation are really like, The Policy > doesn't read as "The Policy" but as a single unreliable source in a > tangled web of practice and theory that includes The Guide. > > Consider this single snippet from The Policy: > > "Release plans are developed and excuted[sic] in public by the community. > (requirement on minimum number of such releases?) > Note: incubator projects are not permitted to issue an official > Release. Test snapshots (however good the quality) and Release plans > are OK. > Engagement by the incubated community with the other ASF communities, > particularly infrastructure@ (this reflects my personal bias that > projects should pay an nfrastructure[sic] "tax")." > > Line 2 is a question. Who wrote it? What is the answer? Why is there > an embedded question in The Policy at all? > > Line 3 seems contrary to actual practice. > > Line 4 includes "my personal bias". Whose bias is that? Is that bias > now policy, or is it still just a personal opinion? > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 7:35 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:19 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > > wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 6:16 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 6:04 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 4:06 PM, John D. Ament < > johndam...@apache.org> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 4:57 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:26 AM, John D. Ament < > >> johndam...@apache.org> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Graduation Guide > >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Added a link to the Maturity Model as a step to follow for > >> >> graduation. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > There has been past controversy on including that as a graduation > >> step. > >> >> > I'm > >> >> > > not clear that was a proper addition. Every discussion has said > >> that it > >> >> > can > >> >> > > be used as a *guide*, rather than as a checklist. > >> >> > > >> >> > I argued myself into adding this one. While I don't disagree with > >> your > >> >> > perspective, every time a podling graduates it comes up from board > >> >> > members. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Some Directors != The Board > >> >> > >> >> The Board has never required the IPMC to use the APMM as a > requirement > >> for > >> >> graduation. And, I don't recall the IPMC making that requirement > either. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The IPMC did not prepare the maturity model, yet somehow it > >> >> > applies to podlings planning to graduate. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Says who? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I'll point out that the page itself states this is only a guide, > not a > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> On graduation.html, you list "Complete the Apache Project Maturity > >> Model" > >> >> as one of the preparation steps. That does not sound like a guide. > >> >> > >> >> policy. So I don't think we've changed Incubator policy by adding a > >> link. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> By listing it like that on the graduation page, it is de facto > policy. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I could see it being stated as more of "compare the podlings > actions > >> and > >> >> > behaviors against the maturity model. I could also see it moving > into > >> >> the > >> >> > "Other Issues" section of the guide instead of the checklist > section. > >> >> > > >> >> > Thoughts? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Personally, I'd be fine with the link under "Other Issues". Something > >> like > >> >> "You may find the APMM a useful guide, to look at different factors > in > >> your > >> >> podling's community." (<waves-hand> on phrasing) > >> >> > >> >> > >> > I think at this point, we're just arguing semantics. I've drafted the > >> > following for the other issues section. I've removed it from the > >> checklist > >> > section. > >> > >> The feedback I consistently get from all the podlings I mentor is that > >> it would be really great if our documentation clearly separated policy > >> from advice. In fact, having two separate documents is what they > >> all seem to have in mind. Today we have guides which are pretty verbose > >> and mix the two. > >> > > > > I've gotten the same type of questions. The problem is that this line > > already exists in the graduation "guide" > > > > This is just a guide. Policy is stated here. (where here is a link to the > > actual policy document) > > > > Anyway you can think to make it clearer? > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Roman. > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >
