On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 9/4/17 4:54 AM: > > Hi John, > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:11 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> ...Its unfair for us to put some stake in the ground expecting podlings > to > >> match up 100% on the questions. Many of the questions are subjective - > is > >> the code easy to discover? respond to bug reports in a timely manner?... > > > > Ok, I think I understand your reluctance now: you don't want us to set > > a gate for graduating podlings that many TLPs might not pass. > > > > I agree with that, and although I'm a strong supporter of the Maturity > > Model (having initiated it that's understandable ;-) I'm totally ok > > with podlings graduating without fullfilling all of its requirements. > > > > In my view the model is: > > > > 1) A good tool to help discover areas that podlings might have neglected. > > > > 2) A good tool to help podlings look at where they stand, and what > > they might still need to improve after graduation. > > > > 3) A good tool to express our ideal way of doing things, in a concise > > way, and evolve that definition over time. > > > > Based on this I will continue to push for podlings to come to > > graduation with a self-assessment based on that model. > > > > OTOH I'm fine with us clarifying that it's not a requirement. > > Proposal: It should be a *requirement* for the podling to self-document > their maturity model answers in the [DISCUSS] thread before IPMC > graduation vote. The requirement is having done it, not passing it. > > To be clear - it is not a requirement today for podlings to complete the Apache Project Maturity Model. I'll be honest, I have no idea why they think they have to do it, but they do it. I don't want to stop them from doing it, but I want to stop them from incorrectly stating they pass everything. I also want to clarify that the answers should not be "Yes" or "No" but an "OK" and explaining their response, or perhaps an "N/A" and explain why that line doesn't apply to them yet (the most common issue is related to something Dave's brought up recently where projects are answer the security reporting questions). > It's *very* helpful to have podlings consider their growth using some > form of structured and consistent criteria, so IPMC (and board) can > consider how different podlings see themselves compared to past podling > history. > > It doesn't mean every podling has to say "Yes 100%" to every question, > just that they've considered each point and can describe their situation > there if not. I'd expect plenty of podlings would have some missing or > "we're not completely here" on some points, but still be healthy and > well-self-governing communities ready to graduate. > > > -- > > - Shane > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
