On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I > look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and > confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of > rhetoric. I hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the > whole problem...) > > Yep I don't know that "ignored" is the best word, and i agree the doc can be incomplete and confusing. For another example take the minimum graduation requirements documented on the policy page: "The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is vital to the success of the project)" - http://incubator.apache .org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator That seems reasonably clear. Based on that policy we have people saying a poddling can't graduate yet because they don't have three independent committers. Or maybe they do have three committers listed but some haven't been active for ages. How long is ages though? Or what is active - actually committing something or is the odd email enough? Or what about if we think they would vote in a new person if someone came along in the future, maybe thats enough? Or how about if some of the mentors agree to stick around on the new PMC to make up the numbers? All of those things get debated. Not so long ago we had a "what to do with small slow poddlings" debate and a couple of small poddlings were allowed to graduate anyway despite not quite meeting that minimum requirement, then just a little while later Chuwka in a very similar state was nearly retired. ...ant
