On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/06/13 16:25, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: > >> In my understanding having active contributor in at least 3 >> geographically and organisational distinct places is a prerequisite >> for graduation. >> > > Not to my knowledge - reference? It's *a* rule-of-thumb for judging the > robust-ness to change of a (P)PMC but not policy or even universally agreed. > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community says: The project is considered to have a diverse community when it is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is vital to the success of the project). So it's only about being legally dependent not geographically dispart. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Sebastian Schaffert <sschaff...@apache.org>wrote: also accept that there is some perceived competition between Clerezza and > Marmotta, even though I personally think in reality the systems are very > different and follow different philosophies and goals. > I know that marmotta is quite different from the architecture (EJB vs. OSGI) but I'm not sure about the distinct goal and philosophy. Looking at the features on the marmotta start page they look quite similar. (Transactions and versioning are only there as a concept in clerezza and rules are not supported, but the goal seems similar). There's nothing wrong with competition so we might even have identical goals. But where do you see differences in philosophy and goals? Additionally, the funding for at least 3 years of further development has > been secured and there is a > contractual commitment by Salzburg Research and other organisations to > invest this money into the development of Marmotta (and Stanbol). This is a good thing for the source but a bit questionable for the community. How can a consensus based development and openness to new contributors work if Salzburg Research has a contractual commitment to add certain feature to the project? Cheers, Reto > Every TLP has some odd wrinkle or other - they are not hard to find (as > Marmotta found for L&N ... as many podlings find when looking at L&N > examples!). > > > On 03/06/13 18:37, Sebastian Schaffert wrote: > >> I agree that we should not hurry unnecessarily and first grow a >> broader community and accept more members that were not part of the >> original founders. >> > > No problem, but being in or out of incubator is not particularly relevant. > There are some small advantages after graduation as naming is more stable > (current incubator process makes this less of an issue nowadays), the > removal of the disclaimer helps (a little). It also dissociates from the > initial list of people. All these are quite marginal though from my > experience in ASF. YMMV. > > Andy > >
