On Mar 14, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never*
been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed
to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you
(and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC
could serve for a podling?
If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there
was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a
PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of
the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be
subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working
with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure
we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects
that acted as a single whole.
So, basically, the idea that a sponsoring PMC could/should
direct a podling comes from the time of Geronimo's own incubation?
That was the way it was when we were incubated, and I was not aware
of the change.
Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an
existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that
is supposed merging communities with another.
You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a
podling will go until graduation,' I take it.
I think a podling can change direction during incubation, but I think
they do and should always have a target in mind.
Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup
it will be hard to merge.
I disagree. There's nothing preventing the TLP PMC
members from getting on the PPMC. And other podlings
have managed to merge with little or no pain. Derby,
for example.
I think Derby has done a great job integrating into DB, but I would
like to see even closer ties in the Geronimo project.
I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to
setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target
communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous
whole. This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to
achieve. In originally email I sent out on this and the
conversations I had with a some of the board members before the
email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities. This is what
everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator
and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to
prevent exactly this....
One of the purposes of the incubator is to normalise expectations.
'Indoctrinate,' if you like, newcomers in the Apache ethos. A
group of people working on an external project, which comes
wholesale to Apache with that education being provided by the
accepting TLP, can lead to exactly the sort of problems we had
a few years ago. So the rules aren't there to prevent the
consolidation of communities; they're there (in part) to limit
heresy. :-)
That makes since.
-dain
