On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote: > > > How much of this is already covered by the Incubation process? Hopefully > > projects don't revert to improper licensing or closed development after > > they graduate. > > The absence of clear documentation harms projects both during and after > incubation. > Agreed. > > For example, when a project transgresses against some aspect of Apache > policy, > PMC members may not speak out because they don't feel confident that they > grok > our muddled rules well enough to argue the point -- even though they were > trained on them during incubation. > This is something I've personally experienced, but I hadn't realized that this is what it was until just now, when you explained it. > > Many people around the Foundation have unreasonable expectations about the > Incubator's ability to assure good behavior in perpetuity for its > graduates. > > Meanwhile, the abominable state of our policy documentation goes unnoticed. > I prefer to consider the expectations optimistic rather than unreasonable. Would it be easier to start from the Incubator checklist/guidelines and figure out how to expand that to the general populace rather than building a new model from scratch? Or is the idea that things are so bad that we need a drastic cut? I think the Incubator guidelines are reasonable, and have referred to them several times when discussing policy. I suppose that could be consequence of poorly maintained documents, though. Polishing those and hosting them somewhere on www.a.o (instead of incubator.a.o) would likely go a long way. > Marvin Humphrey > Mike
