Hi all, Having gone through Justin's link to the Apache maturity model [1] I guess we are on an extremely good path (Keep in mind this is not a maturity model for incubator projects, but all Apache projects)
As far as I can see it, we get 100% of the points for most categories. There are however some, where we could improve with little effort: Quality - QU30: The project provides a well-documented, secure and private channel to report security issues, along with a documented way of responding to them. Apache usually has a channel for that [2] ... but we should add a page guiding people there. - QU40: The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and documentation to help users transition to new features. Till now we have had changes of the API which were necessary but documented. I guess we should start stabilizing the API soon (Probably with a 1.0.0 release) as soon as we have sorted out any possibly still existing API quirks Community: CO50 - The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the same for all contributors. We haven't officially discussed and documented this. Consensus Building: CS10 - The project maintains a public list of its contributors who have decision power -- the project's PMC (Project Management Committee) consists of those contributors. We should create and maintain such a list CS40 - In Apache projects, vetoes are only valid for code commits and are justified by a technical explanation, as per the Apache voting rules defined in CS30. This sort of contradicts our decision making guidelines at [3] but this table is based on the official Apache document [4] ... not quite sure what to do here ... will take it to the incubator list. In the end we should also add a document to our site that is similar to this [5] So ... with this ... would it be ok for us to vote on becoming a TLP or would we have to address everything first? Chris [1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html [2] http://www.apache.org/security/ [3] http://plc4x.apache.org/developers/decisions.html [4] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DefaultProjectGuidelines [5] https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/576b3c5d6a7022ac4a8df1ef118666456ce627fb/MATURITY.adoc Am 04.03.19, 13:11 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <[email protected]>: Hi, thanks for the clarification. Then I'm fine with the doc : ) Julian Am 04.03.19, 13:09 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>: Hi Julian, I had an error in my table markup ... in a few minutes the footnotes should appear ... they're already in the adoc file, but not rendered. The document is from a point of view of the to become TLP (Cause otherwise there would have been more to mention ... "IPMC approval of Releases, Committers, PPMCs", ... And as soon as we are a TLP we no longer have a PPMC, but a PMC as the first "P" stands for "Podling". And I think you are misunderstanding the "Board" ... this is not the Incubator PMC (IPMC is just the short name of that). The Incubator itself is an Apache TLP and has it's PMC. All TLPs report to the Board of the apache foundation. So our Incubator report goes into one big report of the Incubator project and that is then submitted as a big report to the Board. Chris Am 04.03.19, 12:00 schrieb "Julian Feinauer" <[email protected]>: Hi Chris, I read the document and I like it. A few findings / remarks: - is this document from the perspectiv of a incubating project or the (to become) TLP? - You always mention the PMC (should be (P)PMC for a podling) - For a podling the "Yes" is missing for board report approval - Do the 1) / 2) / 3) Stand for footnotes? If so, they are missing - I think there is a slight rendering issue with the "===" at the bottom left But these are just slight remarks (except for the podling vs TLP difference). Julian Am 04.03.19, 10:23 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>: Hi all, so I just added [1] (will take a few minutes to be live) However I haven't linked it in the menu yet as we haven't discussed it's content. In general it describes what we have been doing so far (That's why I took the liberty to select Consensus Approval for electing new Committers as we have been doing that) If you agree, then I would comment in the link and have it appear in the menu. Chris [1] http://plc4x.apache.org/developers/decision.html Am 04.03.19, 09:59 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>: Hi all, I am currently creating a copy of the content on https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DefaultProjectGuidelines This is generally agreed upon by the IPMC and I a really good summary. I think we shouldn't do anything different. The main idea of copying instead of linking is: If in the future the linked document would change, we wouldn't notice that. Then we could have people coming by referring to the new version and we haven't realized the changes. This way we could Be made aware of changes, discuss them in the project and update our website. And 1 and 2 in my initial email weren't meant as alternatives. I think we should start with all "carried over PPMCs" being "PMCs" and "Comitters" As we don't have any Committers that are not PPMCs this is sort of a trivial assumption ;-) The number 2 was just a suggestion, that the list of "Carried over PMCs" should be all the IPMCs that responded to the "You want to be carried over" Email. Chris Am 04.03.19, 09:01 schrieb "Sebastian Rühl" <[email protected]>: Hi all, I agree to what Julian wrote and would also would vote to graduate. Currently im a bit involved in private projects but during this march I should find some more time for the project again. Sebastian On 2019/03/01 20:35:03, Julian Feinauer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > first, thanks for bringing this up and doing all necessary tedious work. > As this is the first incubating project I'm that heavily involved I'm lacking the exact feeling but I do not feel "unready". > > I think we have achieved a lot since I joined the project and I'm very happy that we have such a strong core community. > The last release also gave me confidence that we are able to do all these steps without you (not that we mind if you do it... ). > The next (or the release after) will be performed by Tim and I feel confident that he will be able to do it easily with our documentation and some help from you or me. > > Regarding the PPMC / PMC question... I would favor the second variant. > We have a pretty big roster (on paper) with many people never seen on list (or anywhere else). > So I think this could be a good chance to trim it down a bit and have it in more accordance with the people who really went active for the project. > > Tl;dr; Let's do it : ) > > Julian > > > Am 01.03.19, 13:49 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>: > > Ok ... logo is uploaded ... so that should have been the last open task (Hopefully) > > Chris > > Am 01.03.19, 13:14 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>: > > Hi Justin, > > well most of the red lines were actually false positives: > - We do have the image and link to the latest events on the page, however we include it with CSS > - Also was there a License link (Even if it was previously called "Apache License", I updated that in the menu and additionally let it output the "Apache" menu containing that link in the bottom navigation. > - I added a Trademark disclaimer in the bottom and added a TM to all Apache products mentioned on the start page. > - I'll add the logo ... if I find out how to do it ;-) > > And Justin, thanks for reporting this ... that's why we wanted you on board :thumbsup: > > Chris > > Am 01.03.19, 12:50 schrieb "Justin Mclean" <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > I'll work on the issues reported in [2] ... didn't know about that page … > > Nothing major from what I can see but IMO the trademark notice in the footer need updating. > > Thanks, > Justin > > > > > >
