On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > ...I think the current Model has a number of vague statements that are > unlikely to be interpreted consistently without clarification. For > instance "The project is open and honest about the quality of its > code."..
That's a good example where a yes or no answer does not make much sense. What's useful is a response like "we include a list of know issues with each release" or "experimental or unstable modules are clearly labeled as such" that demonstrate that the project takes quality seriously and does not try to hide problems from their users. I think such items help projects take a look at their overall well-being, and at the same time they make it impossible to base graduation on a given score based on that model - because there are no black and white answers for those items. So IMO we're doing the right thing in recommending that projects do a self-assessment based on that model before graduation, yet not requiring specific results for graduation. -Bertrand --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
