On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> >> 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? >> >> What was unclear is the timing on when do we get to talk about those >> million dollar questions and in what format. I guess now that I've >> commented >> on this thread, I'll wait for the follow up. > > > There is useful work going on right now on the how. > > See the maturity model. > > See the release guidelines. > > See pretty much everything that Marvin has been doing, for that matter.
I totally agree it is super useful work, but it is like doing a POC. Once you're done with it -- what's next? > As I stated in the subject line, I am starting on the other end of the > process to build more consensus about what we are doing so that some of the > more difficult problems will have that consensus as a starting point. I don't think there's any disagreement on high-level requirements for Incubator functions. I don't think there was any ever. In that way, your document captures the status quo that everybody is already agreeing with. The real disagreement is on how are we going to address the list of the following concerns: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013 All of which are well within the *agreement* on what *needs* to be done. It is just that it doesn't alway happen the way we want it to. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
