> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:33 PM
>>Stephen McConnell wrote:
> I think the real reason is that I have a lot of scepticism about the
> successful functioning of the Incubator. I imaging future scenarios
> where candidates are keep wa
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
The incubator has a scope concerning "incubation". I hope the incubator
aims to to provide the role of gatekeeper together with a support
infrasture the accelerate the sucessful exit of incubated projects.
so far so good.
Wi
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> The incubator has a scope concerning "incubation". I hope the incubator
> aims to to provide the role of gatekeeper together with a support
> infrasture the accelerate the sucessful exit of incubated projects.
so far so good.
> Within the objective and scope, op
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
My own theory is that this entire discussion is exceeding the bounds of
duristiction of the Incubator PMC.
why?
The incubator has a scope concerning "incubation". I hope the incubator
aims to to provide the role of gatekeeper tog
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> My own theory is that this entire discussion is exceeding the bounds of
> duristiction of the Incubator PMC.
why?
> Does the Incubator PMC have an formal opinion on this subject?
since there are a number of people discussing this from various
angles, the answer is
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
So what's the final verdict on releases?
I'm wondering about this myself.
My own theory is that this entire discussion is exceeding the bounds of
duristiction of the Incubator PMC. I.e. IMVVHO if the incubated
project wants to publish an artifact it needs to do one
Nicola,
Apologies - I've lost the plot a bit on this one :<.
So what's the final verdict on releases?
Cheers,
Berin
>
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Exit Criteria
> Date: 26/09/2003 16:23:36
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Erik Abele wrote:
...
...but the last part about restricting mirror usage seems a bit
strong to me. IMO the 'Incubatee' should be encouraged and trained to
use our mirroring system appropriately.
In fact this document, coupled with "at least a couple of releases to
exit", is at least wierd, as Ted
On 24/09/2003, at 10:54, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:26 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I put up a Wiki page for it here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/
apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorReleaseManagement
From the Wiki page:
"This means that Projects under
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I've put something slightly different into the IncubatorMussings
document. I've said that the Incubator PMC *recommends* to the
Sponsoring Entity (the receiving PMC) that something has completed,
needs to continue or fails.
no, i don't th
On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:26 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> >Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >
>>> while they are in the Incubator, they must ensure these releases are
>>> clearly labeled as being incubator releases, which are not fully
>>> endorsed by the ASF
>>
>>>
Ted Leung wrote:
On 9/23/2003 12:10 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ted Leung wrote:
Meritocracy / Community
Demonstrate an active and diverse development community
No single organization supplies more than 50% of the active
committers (must be at least 3 independent committers)
How do you ass
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>
while they are in the Incubator, they must ensure these releases are
clearly labeled as being incubator releases, which are not fully
endorsed by the ASF
Does this fit with what you had in mind?
Works for me. But you should make sure that it works f
> while they are in the Incubator, they must ensure these releases are
> clearly labeled as being incubator releases, which are not fully
> endorsed by the ASF
> Does this fit with what you had in mind?
Works for me. But you should make sure that it works for the Incubator PMC.
As I understand f
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > You can call it the "anti-big-company" rule.
>
> Diversity is good on the grounds that (a) no one company can control the
> direction of an ASF project, and (b) the fate of one company doesn't dictate
> the fate of the project.
But also that the fa
On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 2:01 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
(requriment on minimum number of such releases?)
>>> two?
>> That's two "Not official ASF releases" ;-)
>
> LOL Call them "Dress Rehearsals" :-) I agree that they should learn
> the process until it becomes a habit.
>
> I don't
Ted Leung wrote:
>On 9/23/2003 12:10 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> Ted Leung wrote:
>>> Meritocracy / Community
>>> Demonstrate an active and diverse development community
>>> No single organization supplies more than 50% of the active
>>> committers (must be at least 3 independent committ
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
For example, for Lenya I'm wondering if Cocoon is the right place for
them, as I've not seen much involvment. I'll wait and see, but for
now I would not vote for exit as there is not much integration.
As a member of the Cocoon, or Incubator PMC?
Is there a differenc
On 9/23/2003 12:10 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ted Leung wrote:
Meritocracy / Community
Demonstrate an active and diverse development community
No single organization supplies more than 50% of the active
committers (must be at least 3 independent committers)
How do you assess that? Are
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
> I've put something slightly different into the IncubatorMussings
> document. I've said that the Incubator PMC *recommends* to the
> Sponsoring Entity (the receiving PMC) that something has completed,
> needs to continue or fails.
no, i don't think so. the incubato
Steven Noels wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If a project cannot work well with the Sponsor PMC it's a failure, the
Incubator will not agree to make it go. It may decide to swith
targets, but imposing a project on non-willing PMC is simply out of
question.
OK - good. Mind you that I don't int
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If a project cannot work well with the Sponsor PMC it's a failure, the
Incubator will not agree to make it go. It may decide to swith
targets, but imposing a project on non-willing PMC is simply out of
question.
Which may require a vote of the
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If a project cannot work well with the Sponsor PMC it's a failure, the
Incubator will not agree to make it go. It may decide to swith targets,
but imposing a project on non-willing PMC is simply out of question.
OK - good. Mind you that I don't intend this to be a criti
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If a project cannot work well with the Sponsor PMC it's a failure, the
Incubator will not agree to make it go. It may decide to swith targets,
but imposing a project on non-willing PMC is simply out of question.
Which may require a vote of the PMC in question to determi
Steven Noels wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Exactly.
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it
*wants* that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Because of things happening during incubation. What if a podling becomes
a mutant during incubation, in
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it
*wants* that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Maybe there were reservations that the PMC wanted to have covered off
during incubation.
Practical example?
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Exactly.
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it *wants*
that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Because of things happening during incubation. What if a podling becomes
a mutant during incubation, in the best case changi
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it *wants*
that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Maybe there were reservations that the PMC wanted to have covered off
during incubation. The best way to ensure that everyone is comf
Steven Noels wrote:
Do I read you correct in saying that the receiving PMC has no chance
anymore to declare an incubation failed, if the Incubator PMC says the
contrary? In that case (and I hope I'm wrong), why is the receiving PMC
involved then?
I've put something slightly different into the I
Steven Noels wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Engagement by the XMLbeans community with the XML PMC and other ASF
sub communities, particularly infrastructure@ (this reflects my
personal bias that projects should pay an infrastructure "tax").
Incubator PMC has voted for graduation
XML PMC h
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Engagement by the XMLbeans community with the XML PMC and other ASF
sub communities, particularly infrastructure@ (this reflects my
personal bias that projects should pay an infrastructure "tax").
Incubator PMC has voted for graduation
XML PMC has voted for final a
Ted Leung wrote:
I don't know if we want to tackle this at the same time as Steven's
document on entering the incubator, but at the moment I"m more focused
on how to get podlings out of the incubator rather than getting them in.
A while ago I proposed some exit criteria for XML beans -- I haven
Ted,
> There are a few XML beans specific items in this list, but I'd like to
> propose that we start a discussion of exit criteria based on this list.
Seems a reasonable starting point. I took the liberty of putting a generic
version of it on the Wiki:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.c
33 matches
Mail list logo
