On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Greg Chase <gch...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> The community is of course thinking about it. That is the point of the
>> Incubator program.
>>
>> However, I imagine we will be asking about graduation after the release of
>> Geode 1.0 GA.
>>
>
> Getting the mechanics of releases right and showing the IPMC that the
> project understand how to do that is important. What I particularly liked
> about this projects 2nd (M2) release was not just the +1 votes, but the
> qualifications that accompanied those votes ("I checked the sigs", "I built
> & ran the tests" etc) - I see that and it gives me confidence that this is
> not a rubber stamping exercise, but the project members are exercising
> their responsibilities with care & attention. In terms of meeting the
> graduation criteria, geode will almost certainly have ticked that box in
> terms of graduation with another release. Obviously users place great
> importance and judge releases on labels such as "milestone", "beta" or "GA"
> etc - but from an ASF perspective these are not relevant as "quality of
> release" is judged on different criteria (licensing, process etc) and by
> those criteria theres no difference between an M1 or a GA release. From
> that perspective, my opinion is that geode is doing a great job and will
> probably have nailed it with the upcoming M3 release.
>
> From what I see, geode has got all its legal ducks in a row (code grants,
> source headers, license compatibility) and so the last and main graduation
> criteria it needs to meet relate to community[1]. IMO this is the most
> difficult (and important) of all the criteria, its also more subjective to
> judge and from a project that entered from a single company the hardest to
> satisfy. From what I see on the mailing list, this is a great community and
> meets the "openness" criteria - its a welcoming place, people
> discuss/disagree and come to a consensus in the way that the ASF expects.
> The one question I have is "are all the discussions/decisions being brought
> to this mailing list?" - as an observer, it looks to me like that is
> happening - but only the project members can confirm that. If the answer is
> yes, then thats another tick in the box. New committers have been voted in
> and (AIUI) this is not just from Pivotal, but other "legally independent"
> people, so growing the community is also met. Lastly is the "diversity"
> question and this is probably the hardest to give a definitive answer. The
> IPMC seems to have moved from the prescriptive criteria laid out in the
> link below to a more judgement based approach and it would be a good idea
> to discuss this with your mentors and/or sound out the wider IPMC on how
> geode can meet this criteria. Obviously the more new independent people you
> recruit, the better for this - but would be good to know how near or far
> you are from meeting that. The one thing I would say is that alot of people
> were put on the initial incubator proposal (70+ I believe) and I would
> recommend reviewing that when you decide to go for graduation and removing
> anyone who has not been active (easy enough to vote them back in later if
> they start contributing) as I'm sure that will help with the balance as
> well as reflecting reality.

Niall, thanks a million for your extremely thoughtful reply. With my
mentor hat on,
I wholeheartedly agree with all the points you made. I really do think
the community
is on a trajectory to graduate relatively soon.

Given that, now would be a perfect time to start bringing up concerns
and suggestions
along the lines of what you've mentioned in your last sentence.

Thanks,
Roman.

Reply via email to