Hello kerPtinop,
It seems that determining whether TinkerPop should graduate or not is now
(semi) a matter of personal opinion by our mentors. I say this given Daniel's
comment of:
As an aside, not specifically related to this email, you can think of
mentors as teachers at a university or school. While we will help you as
much as we can during incubation, once the big exam comes (and we'll
have a few of those even before that), it is up to _you_ to prove to us
that you are ready and prepared.
I take this as a call-to-arms on our part to do as said -- let us "prove" that
we are ready to graduate?
I believe we can do this using a technically feasible style of argumentation
called statistics.
Lets get a list of all graduated Apache projects in the last 1 year. Then lets
get metrics in various dimensions --- with the help of the mentors of course.
Off the top of my head, these metics may be:
1. Number of releases.
2. Number of commits.
3. Number of committers (be smart about pull merges here).
3. Distribution of commits across committers.
4. Number of projects that <depend/> on TinkerPop (this can be gotten
from repo1).
5. Number of mails to dev@
6. Number of PMC members.
7. Distribution of employers of the PMC members.
8. …
Perhaps the mentors can provide us what dimensions they will personally use to
judge us. That is, not what numbers they will use to judge us, but which
dimensions as we will determine if we meet those qualifications given our
percentile position relative to other graduating Incubator projects. Finally,
if we are lacking in any said dimension, we will strive to meet those marks
(again, relative to past graduating projects) and tada: we have proved our
worthiness.
Thoughts?,
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
