On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:10:14 -0400, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > My only comment here is that the Incubator performed a legal action in > accepting Zipkin; in doing so, Zipkin enjoyed some level of ASF > services as well as legal protection.
> To dissolve that 'relationship', there should be a clear trail of > intent and action in doing so, not only by Zipkin but also by the > Incubator itself. Agree - we only need to do the VOTE so there is sufficient oversight to confirm the dissolvement; as the Incubator formally is the custardian. If a podling is moving OUT of ASF then that indicates that the ASF Way (or our attempt to implement that) was not right for them. That is a fair position that would be true for many brilliant open source projects. Consequently, this means that additional oversight should be done by IPMC and mentors to check that the decision to move out/retire was still done with podling community consensus, and that it is not just a fork, or done a whim. Before I casted my vote on Zipkin I checked the relevant archives and threads and made up my own mind. Personalities have certainly played into this case on both sides, as well as technical and bureaucratic hurdles. I think we have all learnt from this. I found Zipkin community has discussed this at large internally and with the board, and there was also a consensus from active podling PMC members - so in that case, yes we morally cannot stop them. However IPMC members can't easily come to that conclusion collectively without having a point of action (e.g. the VOTE). It might be noisy and seem odd, but it is also our responsibility - podlings join ASF incubator in good faith and are not autonomous from day one. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
