On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:21 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Dave, > > On 2/26/13 4:18 PM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> >>> This is exactly the scenario I have in mind. Most of the times, >>> projects aim for being very successful and have their own healthy >>> community, but that is not always the outcome, and exiting Incubator >>> as an adopted project should be still be a possibility. >> >> I don't think we should exclude incubating projects from being >> incorporated into other projects. It may be preferred to the attic or >> github should a community fail to thrive. The incubator does not need to >> be TLP or fail. >> >> Perhaps the assimilation of an incubating podling to another PMC should >> not be called graduation. Maybe it should be handled piece by piece. >> >> (1) PPMC votes to approach a PMC with Mentor / IPMC approval like for a >> release. > > Please name me a specific example scenario in which #1 has happened at the > ASF without pre stated intent to join that TLP. I'm going to date myself an make myself feel old, but: Yoko Originally, Yoko was planning to be a TLP. However, the entire CORBA space kind of died and the original company involved with donating the code more or less withdrew support. However, by then Geronimo had taken it as an important dependency and a few of the Geronimo folks had started contributing fixes and stuff to it. Some CXF users were using the web service parts of it. However, the community itself really couldn't get enough traction. (partially because it was a split community between the ORB folks and the WS folks). Thus, instead of graduating to TLP, it kind of split with the ORB going to Geromino and the WS bits being assimilated into CXF's main build. So, it the community didn't completely die. Incubation wasn't really a failure. The incubation efforts really showed that it should have been parts of the existing TLPs. Dan > I would be very surprised to see it happen b/c it would imply graduation > into an existing TLP wasn't premeditated. > That's the whole point of the "sponsoring PMC" portion of the Incubator > proposal, from the beginning, to declare > the intent to graduate into a existing TLP - otherwise that section > wouldn't be needed and the answer would always > be Incubator PMC. For the record, since the whole umbrella project thing, > most of the sponsoring (I can name perhaps 1-5) > incoming Incubator podlings are all Incubator PMC sponsored, for intent to > graduate to TLP. > > On the graduating into existing TLP end, I don't think that makes sense - > apparently at least 2 other people don't either judging by +1s and words. > I would like to fix that. But, I don't think I've ever seen #1 where they > haven't already declared that their intent from the beginning. > >> >> (2) Receiving PMC votes to accept IP - if not cleared then it accepts >> that responsibility. > > If PMCs can accept the type of "podling sized" IP contribution then I > think that the Incubator is a pointless committee. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
