ant elder wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Thorsten Scherler < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 07:42 +0200, Bernd Fondermann wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 22:40, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 16:16 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >>>>> BTW, why do you need to go through incubation? >>>> http://labs.apache.org/bylaws.html >>>> >>>> "... >>>> Lab Lifecycle >>>> ... >>>> Promoted >>>> Lab started incubation. When a lab is promoted, the files are moved >>> over >>>> to the incubation area. >>>> >>>> >>>>> All the code was >>>>> developed in the ASF. It's ASL. You already have a home >>> designated >>>>> for it. Seems like incubation can be skipped. >>> No Lab can go into a project without going through the incubator. >>> That's how I read "Guidelines Rationale" of the bylaws. >> Yeah, this how I understand them as well. >> >>> This is certainly the case when a Labs wants to go TLP. If the very >>> same incubation process is needed for full blown TLP candidates _and_ >>> for small codebases going to be absorbed into existing projects, I >>> don't know. >>> >>> There are no precursors for this process. >> Actually not having to go through incubation will save quite a lot of >> time and energies. I see your and Grant point however we would need to >> specify our bylaws. >> >> > I does seem to me like there should be some sort of incubation fast track > for a lab project that wants to become a subproject of an existing TLP. > > There shouldn't be many legal issues as the code is done entirely in the > Labs SVN by existing ASF committers with CLAs and an understanding of the > ASF. The diversity of incubating projects is mostly important for those > wanting to become TLPs and if you look at the incubating projects graduating > to subprojects recently they haven't had much diversity. The project name > probably still needs to be checked out for trademark issues or does that > happen before a Lab project is started? The main advantage would be the > exposure and publicity it would get starting in the Incubator may attract > some new committers, but if there was some fast track route through the > Incubator the project might still get that. Seems a shame to go through all > the infrastructure work for a new Incubator project - mailing lists etc - if > its not going to be there long before moving to a subproject of another TLP.
Agreed, but this is something the incubator has to decide, not us. If they want to establish a fast-track, fine with me.... although I doubt it: IP might be easy to clear by trusting the CLA and inspecting the SVN history... but community building remains and right now there is only one committer on that codebase, which is hardly enough. Although if an existing TLP sponsors the move in incubation, maybe the incubator would act differently. I don't know, honestly, we have never done this before, which is why the first time it might be a little confusing and over-burocratic, and I'm sorry for this, but the alternative (bypass incubation) would be way more disruptive, at least before labs-specific incubation practices get established. -- Stefano. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
