I still see the necessity to have one dubbo group outside apache group to serve the eco system purpose, because the following possible reasons coming up from my head for now:
- too trivial to even move into incubating stage - the quality doesn't meet incubating requirement yet - the contributor may happy to donate his works to dubbo group, but unwilling to follow apache's policy - hard to search under apache group, has to use 'incubating-dubbo' to search What I propose is we will set up one incubating mechanism similar like Apache inclubating. When we feel it's ready, we could graduate it from dubbo group and move it into Apache to continue to incubate, before that, we could guarantee ICLA signed. In my own opinion, by doing this we are encouraging people to contribute more because the entry bar is lower. I am happy to see all projects eventually can be able to move into Apache to incubate, though it may harm use experience a little bit as I explained above about search. Again, in my own opinion, I am also flexible to start moving all projects under dubbo group into Apache to incubate as soon as IP clearence is done. But we should listen to other's response on this topic, and discuss further if necessary in order to work out one better solution. Just my two cents, -Ian. On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:55 PM Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > HI, > > Just a couple of questions below for people to ponder and I think it worth > having a discussion on list about this. I don’t think having this external > repo is a bad idea or against ASF policy but long term it could harm the > project. For instance only contributions to the Apache project can be > considered when voting committers or PMC members in. So contribution to the > eco system doesn't accrue merit in the project eyes. You may run into > licensing and other IP issues without ICLA to cover all contributions. > Projects in the eco system may not follow the release or other ASF > policies. I can see that several already don’t follow the ASF licensing > policy, which is OK as they are not ASF projects, but if you want to use > them with Dubbo that could cause issues. You see the sort of issues that > could occur here? > > What do other mentors think about this? > > > Justin, this is dubbo eco system, including some artifacts built against > > dubbo extension machanism, polyglot support, samples, scaffold, etc., > which > > are apparently not suitable to put in dubbo's main project. > > Why is it not suitable? You can create multiple repos at Apache. The > project can have multiple projects and release them on different schedules. > > > It is a long term goal to build up eco system around dubbo as rich as > > possible, and it is a common practice to attract more developers and > > contributors, > > Why wouldn’t that be done at Apache rather than external to it? By > attracting developers and contributed to the eco systems you are removing > them as potential committers in Apache Dubbo. > > > for example: https://github.com/grpc-ecosystem. Besides, > > right now GitHub doesn't support 2nd level group like > > github.com/apache/dubbo. > > Why is that needed? Do you really need a two tier community model? > > > If the only problem is ICLA, we could ask the corresponding contributor > (in > > fact, a member in dubbo group) to sign it when the community see the > > necessity to move his/her works back into apache group. > > No that not the only issue (see above) and you would probably need to get > all contributors to sign and it can be hard to track them all down. > Employment contracts may also become an issue regards who owns the IP. What > if it turns out a contributor didn’t actually own their contributions? > > Thanks, > Justin
