I like the proposal of 3 steps prior to releasing... In Greg's words: it teaches instead of hinders. It divides the arduous process of cutting a release in more manageable steps and would make passing the actual release easier/faster.
Martijn On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> >> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> I personally think that the exit criteria are good as they are (in >>> hindsight, Abdera is a good example of a project that graduated with >>> barely enough diversity of active committers), so if we do want to >>> make the Incubator "work faster" my suggestion would be to start by >>> raising our entry criteria. One way to do that would be to start >>> requiring the three mentors to show higher levels of personal >>> commitment than what we currently ask for. >> >> And would Subversion qualify ?? Just kidding... >> >> We could do both #1 and #2 ... and then there might be a bunch of >> 'stale' ones that we retire. And with a smaller number of incubating >> projects, there should be more time for mentors on each one, >> addressing your #3. > > my experience tells me that it's hard to guess which projects are > going to struggle. so tightening the entry criteria may prevent > community led projects being admitted without an improvement in > incubator throughput. > > i'm not sure that loosening the entry criteria is a good idea either: > they give corporations incentives to play our game our way. if > graduation came to be seen as less difficult then there would be less > incentive for corporations to invest in community building in the > incubator. > > IMHO the main issue is that now the process works fine for large > closed source donations (which covers the majority of podlings), the > IPMC has stopped developing the process > > IMHO the next logical step is to break down graduation into a track > with several modular votes based on the criteria the IPMC has > developed for graduation. this should give a more finely grained idea > of where a podling is and would allow immediate approval of steps for > some podlings. for example, AIUI subversion already uses open > development so that could be approved right away (whereas this is > usually the most difficult criterion for podlings which a start as > close source projects). > > releases are a good example. the auditing that is done when the first > release is presented could be done as three steps of the track > (license audit, source audit and artifact audit). only once all steps > were complete would a podling to allowed to submit a release for > official IPMC approval. > > using a track would allow a more linear progression. at the moment, > there's a lot of work setting up the podling and getting things > moving. getting release approval and passing community is difficult so > most podlings drift along for quite a while once the initial effort is > over. breaking down these big, difficult tasks into a number of > smaller ones may make them more approachable. > > - robert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
