Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being
able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
Incubator.
> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> as a sub-project
I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
have binding votes?
This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ
and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
--- Noel
