On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Great example - it's reasonably clear but incorrect (as well as being > imprecise as you illustrate). We don't require a minimum of 3 independent > committers. We require a community that doesn't exclude anyone. > > I don't have the time to look it up but there was quite some discussion > about this point some time ago. I seem to remember the IPMC agreeing the > docs need to be updated. > > Ross > > That would be further evidence that the doc is often "ignored" right? (Would be interested in a link if you/anyone can find it, to see if a decision was clearly made about this) ...ant
