On 2010-08-16, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > now that the waves are flattened again,
The results have been interesting, looks as if many people outside of the RAT development team feel strongly about RAT. 8-) > Now, back to the rat-dev list, I'd like to put the same question to > you again: Isn't it time for RAT to leave the Incubator? And if so, > what would be the target? In order to answer this properly we must also address Niall's concerns that are all but unfounded. Are all PPMC members actually aware that they are on board? Could everybody who is a member of the PPMC please check they are actually subscribed to rat-private? If RAT is going anywhere we must ensure it has enough people who care - of which there seem to be plenty, they may need to be recruited, though. > Regardless of what was written in the first thread, I still feel that > the project is small in all aspects that I can think of. That's why I > clearly thought of becoming a subproject of another, like Commons. I understand that. From where I stand RAT has just been a tool like David's clutch or many other tools that have been developed to upgrade licenses or whatever. That's why infra or the incubator itself appeals to me. > But I did neither expect the pressure in the direction of becoming a > TLP (Greg Stein being interested), nor the lack of interest from the > side of Commons. I do understand that Commons feels RAT doesn't fit its scope. > But the alternative, remaining in the Incubator is something which I > consider to be worse in the medium term. I'd consider the Incubator as a target as a graduated subproject, not as an eternal podling. > Should the discussion be heading into the direction of RAT as a TLP > (which I still view as the second best only) and the question of a > chair become a problem, then I'd offer myself If we get there, I for one would gratefully accept your offer ;-) Stefan
