But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos, well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so bucking the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate to enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being turned into a pariah in the process. =)
(and again - this is purely hypothetical) A. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, that's just it... > > If a project gets to the 'vote for Incubation' phase, there's > a real good chance that all the non-viable and non-acceptable > proposals have either been modified or simply rejected before > it even gets that far. > > > On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected > during > > initial champion counseling or during discussion. > > > > If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care, > > this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however. > > > > As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the > outcome > > is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings > >> getting > >>>> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a > vote?.. > >>> > >>> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say > >>> no earlier. > >>> > >>>> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?... > >>> > >>> Definitely. > >>> > >>>> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?... > >>> > >>> Off the top of my head I'd say: > >>> 1) Not enough experienced mentors > >>> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high > >>> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a > >> community > >>> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started > >>> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the > >>> project will never graduate > >>> > >>> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not > >>> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions. > >> > >> 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2 > >> for example. > >> 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc. > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
