Thanks Shane, that's helpful D. On 14 Mar 2017 9:52 p.m., "Shane Curcuru" <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> (Not subscribed, reading on lists.a.o) > > Excellent discussion, and kudos to Danny for 1) starting it, and 2) > keeping discussions going here. > > One problem that seems easier to solve is awareness. Few people know > about labs, few people talk about them, and they're not really easy for > newcomers to find. So any sort of blogs, tweets, and updates to places > like the community.a.o website that help point to and explain labs are a > good start to at least see if newcomers are interested. > > The other big value I think Labs could have is awareness for individual > labs. Github is certainly easy for hosting projects; but it's easy to > get lost or overlooked on github. If there were some way that Labs > could make the repos committers can ask for be more visible, that might > help. I.e. not just "some random github repo from a random coder", but > "here's an experimental project by an Apache Committer from projects X, > Y, Z". No idea how to do this though. > > On 2017-03-08 10:27 (-0400), Danny Angus <da...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi > > I would love to be the kind of guy who would set out a series of topics > > that we need to discuss, contextualise them and initiate each one, > > collating the output at the end, but I'm not. > > > > So I have a question for the people who have mentioned lack of releases > as > > a problem.. > > > > The idea behind "no releases" was that a release implies that certain > > standards common to the ASF are being met, standards which Labs don't > > apply, and that if a lab needs to cut a release it probably has enough > > users and maintainers to become a project of its own. > > The policy on Apache projects making software releases is clear, if a > little wordy and finicky: > > https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#policy > > This is important because of the phrase 'an official Apache release is > one which has been endorsed as an "act of the Foundation" by a PMC.' > Documenting this process - and having the board ensure that PMCs follow > it - is a necessary step to ensure that software releases used by other > people are acts of the ASF as an organization - and not an act of the > release manager as an individual. > > This would become important if someone $evil ever wanted to sue the > release manager; extremely rare, but if it ever happens, in theory they > could go after your house, your car, your savings. But if a PMC follows > the policy, the $evil person would have to sue the ASF, which has > insurance, lawyers, and could shield the individual release manager or > developers on the project from the lawsuit. > > Labs could create finished software packages and make them available, as > long as it's crystal clear to any possible user (and their lawyers) that > the software package isn't an "Apache release". > > Brainstorm: one concept might be to have the Labs act like a PMC, and > when someone wants to do a release, if they can get two other Lab PMC > members to vote on it (by downloading, checking, and testing it), that > could qualify as an Apache release. If there's a lot of interest, > that's a possibility to look into. But requires each lab make it easy > for other PMC members to vote +1 on their code. > > > > > So my question to those people is this; Is it the lack of the formality > and > > assurance that is a problem or the lack of a build? Would "pre-release > > downloads" be enough? > > > > d. > > -- > > - Shane > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org > >
