Seems like a good approach to me. I think some of Groovy's self-evaluation comments could be made more objective, demonstrable.
On 3/10/16, 6:48 PM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <[email protected]> wrote: >I like how Groovy used the Project Maturity Model (see below) > >Perhaps we could maintain a similar doc in our wiki, add those >Taverna-specific requirements (e g. Command Line release), and then we can >mark what we think needs more work? >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Bertrand Delacretaz" <[email protected]> >Date: 8 Mar 2016 10:41 >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduation for Apache Johnzon >To: "Incubator General" <[email protected]> >Cc: > >On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:16 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> >wrote: >> ...you're missing a proposed charter, the name of the proposed VP, who >> the initial committers, initial PMC, etc... > >And although it's not required, an assessment of the project's health >with respect the Project Maturity Model at [1] is very welcome. > >See for example the Groovy assessment at [2]. > >-Bertrand > >[1] >https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html > >[2] >https://github.com/apache/groovy/blob/576b3c5d6a7022ac4a8df1ef118666456ce627fb/MATURITY.adoc > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
