On 3/2/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 18:02 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > On 3/2/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip/> > > > > > > We should probably be more careful about what projects are accepted into > > > commons. > > <snap/> > > > > Agreed, but how do we do that? > > > > On one hand, its too easy to start a project in Commons, and then have > > the project stall (for a plethora of reasons). OTOH, our charter says > > the sandbox is fairly "open". Needs some objective definition if we're > > going to be selective (such as saying something to the effect of your > > sentence below and then standing firm). > > Well, maybe we just should emphasise that it's not a "failure" for a > project to start in the sandbox then move to Sourceforge or similar. > > Hopefully projects in the sandbox *do* gather a solid team of developers > who are already apache committers, in which case promotion to proper and > support for real releases isn't a problem. However projects that are a > success technically, but don't gather the necessary community *can* and > *should* move elsewhere rather than be regarded as a "failure". > <snip/>
Indeed, we should start emphasizing this whenever a new component is added to sandbox, have a section on the website and point to it while welcoming new components ... etc. :-) I might even summarize this in the blurb for the website, since folks seem to agree. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
