My original understanding was that the podling would start as a pTLP. That "pTLP" was a category of podling, and graduating would be the point where we remove the "p". It does seem a little strange to go from podling -> pTLP -> TLP. I think we started out this way to expedite getting started with Stratos. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Might be missing/forgetting context.) But perhaps for the next attempt, we go straight to pTLP?
On 8 August 2013 09:32, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > Heh, well that wasn't quite the response i was expecting. > > From all the previous discussions around pTLPs we know there are some who > really don't like the idea, i don't want this to turn into another big > argument so I've been trying to think of ways this could happen with > minimum of fuss. In the email at the start of this thread a suggestion was > "propose an interim step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a > podling, move to pTLP when certain criteria are met". I like that, but one > problem is there is some baggage around the word "pTLP". > > A problem with starting the pTLP experiment from a podling is always going > to be whats the difference between becoming a pTLP or just graduating, so a > better understanding of that will be helpful (for me anyway) - is there > something that has been done already since Stratos has been a podling that > now means a pTLP makes less sense? One of those things might be the > trademark search, but thats not yet been done for Stratos. > > Doing a release is being discussed but thats one of the more problematic > activities while in the Incubator and can potentially drag on and on, so > finding a way out before that would be good. Either via a pTLP or just > trying for graduation and arguing that the high number of existing ASF > people involved means the release will still be properly vetted even > outside of the Incubator. But again that just brings me back to whats the > difference to becoming a pTLP or just graduating? > > ...ant > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The whole point of using Stratos as a test case for the probationary TLP >> idea was to provide a vehicle for those who felt this was viable route to >> incubation to demonstrate how it would work. Specifically it was intended >> to be an opportunity to start to answer the concerns that I, and others, >> raised about skipping the IPMC altogether. >> >> However, as Ant and Suresh point out, in the more than six weeks since I >> summarized the discussions during the proposal phase the Stratos project >> has done almost all it needs to graduate. >> >> I agree with Ant that at this point it makes more sense for mentors to >> spend their time finishing incubation and graduate the project as a >> standard podling. >> >> Chris and anyone else who support the pTLP idea can take the outline >> process I pulled together from our earlier discussions (summarized at the >> start of this thread) and apply them to some other project as their time >> allows. It is too late to do it here. Stratos should not have to go through >> the pain of defining a new process unless it brings benefit to the project >> itself. >> >> Ross >> >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >> Senior Technology Evangelist >> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. >> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7 August 2013 13:16, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the >>> background. (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my >>> mind, a probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the >>> Board. And dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss >>> before bringing an idea to the Board. >>> > >>> > On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be >>> > discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't >>> > subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't >>> > be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at >>> > least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past. >>> > >>> > Ok lets do it here then. >>> > >>> > One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be >>> the differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating. >>> > >>> > Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements >>> are documented here: >>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements >>> > >>> > With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF >>> committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for >>> automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is >>> left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be >>> checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go >>> through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats done >>> then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the board. >>> > >>> > I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a >>> goal of Stratos here? >>> > >>> > …ant >>> >>> Hi Ant, >>> >>> This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am >>> seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with >>> Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a >>> wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into >>> graduation, which I agree is only few steps away. >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing >>> lot of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and >>> jira. Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking >>> forward to see the progress: getting a release right with properly >>> formulated license and notice files (especially for convenience binaries >>> which bundle third party dependencies) and see working progress in removing >>> dependence on ws02 repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are >>> not coming from maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid. >>> Essentially the parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and >>> remove all the repos here. >>> >>> Suresh >>> >>> [1] - >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD >> >> >> > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
