I wanted to initiate this discussion (not a vote) so that we can work out interest levels and all be on the same page.
These are our current contribs: bookkeeper/ fatjar/ hedwig/ huebrowser/ loggraph/ monitoring/ rest/ zkfuse/ zkperl/ zkpython/ zktreeutil/ zooinspector/ While most of these are relatively closely tied to ZK, in particular BK and Hedwig are projects that are not directly related to ZK. Rather they are users of the service, similar to say HBase. >From bk/hedwig perspective: I personally think that both of these projects would benefit by moving to the incubator. They could build their own distinct communities and could govern their own development. Their own releases should not be directly tied to ZK releases. As these projects gain momentum (bk is already being looked at by Hadoop and others) this will be even more of an issue. >From zk perspective: While we could also make these subprojects of ZK I don't think that's the right way to go. We (zk pmc) shouldn't be governing these communities, that's what the incubator is for. The incubator may seem daunting given the list of issues that need to be resolved and the oversite provided, but I can tell you from personal experience (whirr) that this is not as big a deal as it seems. I would be willing to be a mentor for both of these projects if they were to move to incubator. >From apache perspective: apache created the incubator specifically for the reasons I'm citing and want to see new, distinct projects move through that process, eventually to become a TLP. Also, how does our (ZK) community recognize the contributions of those primarily working on BK/Hedwig. Do we make them ZK committers? We could, but committership on ZK is supposed to be reserved for those making contributions to ZK itself (the code and community). Given that BK/Hedwig are distinct codebases/users/community this doesn't really fit and complicates some of the governance issues. Please do give this some thought and respond with your insights. Regards, Patrick
