Hi Torsten, On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> Right. So then there would be just no one committing? >>> Please explain how that should work from your POV. >> >> Committing isn't the only contribution. > > That doesn't answer the question and you know it. Let me try and better explain then. What question are you asking? Are you saying that if a community only has 1 major person writing code then it won't be a success? If so, then I'd disagree with you and my statement above holds, and I believe answers the question. The Apache mantra is "community over code", and 3 +1s is what it is all about. On a project where one of those +1s is a coder/hacker, another is a release manager, and another is someone that writes documentation, then no I don't see a problem with that. If the project can muster 3 +1s for new committers, for releases, for etc., then it's absolutely fine. > >>> Exactly. So let's give it the time it needs. What's so bad if it takes 3 >>> years? >> >> That's not a sustainable model for the incubator. > > So far we have been OK. We had other podlings that also took their time > needed. There have been several discussions over the past 9 months about Incubator projects that have been alive for years and in all of those cases the projects are either being encouraged to graduate (e.g., RAT [1]), or to be retired (Alios [2], etc.). Growing projects that live in the Incubator for years is not a sustainable model. Projects should have goals of graduating as soon as they are ready. That's why we have monthly Incubator reporting for the first 3 months, and quarterly after that. Think about what quarterly means. And think about what reporting means. It means that at worst, every 3 months, the IPMC chair reports to the board on the _current status of the podling towards *graduation*_. That's what reporting is about. And, that's what mentoring is about. Mentors should actively check with their podlings during those 3 month reporting cycles to make sure they are on path to meet their goals for graduating. > >>> Quoting from the incubator guide at >>> Snip... >>> That's just not the case yet. >> >> Says you with absolutely 0 merit in this community besides lurking. > > As a member of the ASF and a member of the incubator PMC I am voicing > my concerns. > You just call me troll and don't adress my concerns at all. You are welcome to your concerns. I am also welcome to my statement that I think Lucy is graduating. Both of us are Incubator PMC members, and have a single VOTE towards Lucy's graduation when the time that the VOTE is cast, at which point it's at least 3 +1s from the PMC, and then simply more +1s than -1s at that point after that. I have a few real concerns right now too, which led me to start this thread: 1. Those doing the work in Lucy (and yes, it's more than Marvin, and to reduce it to just Marvin is a joke) don't have binding VOTEs on the work they are doing right now. Joe Schaefer stepped up and rewrote the build system with Marvin's help. Peter just RM'ed the frickin' project (NICE Peter!). We've had new committers (e.g., David, Brad). We've had releases, multiple of them. Heck, even I RM'ed one of them. I want to get the people doing the work to have binding VOTEs, and the best way to do that is to make them a committee, that is self-directing and managing, make them a PMC. Have they met the criteria for that? 2. In my mind, anyone that goes back, reads the Lucy proposal [3], and reads out monthly reports for the last 1 year and 3 months will see that the checklist has been checked off from what we originally set out to do. 3. Not gating or tying graduation to a set of development goals, and thinking that we are still X development goals away from graduation. Guess what, development can still occur while you are graduating! In fact, I'd encourage it. In Tika and OODT, we didn't shut down SVN when we started graduating. We didn't shut down the mailing lists. We just kept working. Same in Nutch. Same in all the projects I've watched graduate, and mentor over the years, including some pretty huge ones at Apache. 4. A TLP allows the Lucy community to continue doing what they are doing. It's not TLP and then everything is stopped, we pat ourselves on the make, and we're 1.0. TLP != 1.0. TLP simply says that the commumity has shown that it can: (a) self-govern; (b) elect new committers; (c) make releases of ALv2 licensed software, with proper license vetting, etc.; (d) show diversity in terms of organizations, etc. Lucy has shown all that. There is no requirement that you need to be at 1.0, or have met N development goals before you can graduate. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers, Chris [1] http://s.apache.org/lx [2] http://s.apache.org/7gf [3] http://wiki.apache.org/lucy/LucyIncubatorProposal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
