>Decide which code is in/out: "... keep our future options open >to bring in the rest of the code later without a second software grant."
That sounds like a good plan. What do we have to do to find out if we can bring the rest of the code in later without a new grant? A weekly status sounds like a good way to keep this moving. Gale On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 8:49 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:31:59 +0000, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There is a recent thread regarding getting podlings to graduate on the > > > incubator mailing list. Perhaps we can add Taverna to their list. We > may > > > have stalled again. Any thoughts? What really, really, really needs > done > > > to graduate? Let's move out any non essential components. We've already > > > released several so they are ready to go. Of the rest what do we really > > > need to keep? I can't see any that are essential. > > > > I think you've described the situation accurately. > > > > * Decide which code is in and which is not. > > This is the tricky bit.. I guess we have been undecided, as there is > more we think "should" keep than we have been able to get ready. > > We have to be more realistic and cut our ambitions to align with the > actual effort we have available. It would be good if we can still keep > our future options open to bring in the rest of the code later without a > second software grant. > > > > * Release the "in" code. > > Agreed. This should be not be too much work for taverna-server, and even > for taverna-workbench-* (although they might not be release-ready for > the public). > > > > * Don't stall :-) > > Let's start a weekly status roll to avoid stalling. We can do it > > > > Good would be to have more PPMC diversity of organisation. > > Technically we've got higher diversity now that Ian no longer > works at The University of Manchester, Christian and Donal are in a > different group and Gale got a new job :-) - but I see your point - > particularly in consideration of what is effectively the *active* PPMC. > > > Graduation needs the codebase to be ASF-clean and verified; that's > > Tavernas main item in my view. A release does that best. > > I suggest we do a source code release of what we have, and don't promote > too much on the website anything that is not at user-ready. > > Taverna Mobile would be interesting to release as well - as there's > never been an Android release through the incubator before, and those > have their own (it turns out) proprietary build chains. > > > > Maybe Taverna isn't quite at the point to be rallied. The other > > podlings are mostly all done, just need to do the grdauation step itself. > > Agree on this ; while we're pretty much ready to graduate, for the IPMC > to evaluate that this is the case would take a bit longer than in the > projects in the rally. > > I think Ian has done well on our license review under > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-09+License+review > and sub pages, which fits into > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+Taverna+Graduation+Maturity+Assessment > > However the above still needs filling in for the remaining parts, from > RE40 and below. > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > The University of Manchester > http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/ > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > >
