Inline On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > We have just had a few interminable threads regarding what is wrong with > > incubator and jumping directly to implementation attempts for changes. > ... > > > > To do this, I am going to start a google doc to describe WHAT the > incubator > > is supposed to do (easier to edit than a wiki) and once that document > > stabilizes a bit will move it to the wiki. > > > > That document should be able to let us move to similar efforts to > describe > > HOW the incubator currently works. I would hope that one side effect of > > this second stage would be to pull together current documentation on the > > current incubator. > ... > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dxUVHGWcj83wIVnskYL7iM7PiiScLLNS4HjGHa6LsgA/edit?usp=sharing > > I've reviewed the document and left a couple of comments. Feel free > to incorporate the suggestions in the main text. > > In my view this document achieves the goal of stating things that > we can all agree on as to what Incubator should be doing. It works > great as a doc you can put on the front page of incubator.apache.org. > Good. > What it currently lacks is specifics on how are we going to make > sure that all the right things that this document postulates actually > happen. There's not explanation of checks-n-balances. > Right. If you read my original posting above, you will see that this document was intended to express intent, but not method. > So, for example (just to pick a random spot) when we talk about "The > Apache Incubator's > function at this point is..." I think we can all agree on what the > function is > but what is the process that guarantees that that functions succeeds is the > million dollar question. > Well, starting with the easy questions is a good place to get consensus. That was the point here. > Ted, was it your intent to first get an agreement on *what* we all expect > from the Incubator and then follow up on *how* are these expectations > going to be met by our current policies? > I think that is what I said in my original posting and in the preamble of this document. Was it somehow unclear?
