Hi, As one of the initial contributor, I still think that the incubator road is the good one even if it's just for a short period of time. The incubator will gives us the ability to get some committers outside of the initial group of people and to mature the project.
When we will have reach that point then TLP will make sense but not before that also the incubator road in my mind will help us in getting a better understanding of what our users really need; Is it a end-to-end product or more an SDK where user can take some part and build their own tools/products? I'm in favor of the SDK but this still need to be discussed/implemented. For all of this I vote for the incubator but in order to simplify the transition and for our current users I would like to keep the current naming convention. +1 incubator but with Chukwa's current naming convention. /Jerome, On 6/25/10 1:55 AM, "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com> wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 21:21, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote: > On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa >>> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a >>> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them >>> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-) >> >> I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a >> strawman ;-) > > Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this > vote to a conclusion :) Wasn't the debate started just for the sake of hijacking the vote thread? ;-) Seriously, [DISCUSS] before [VOTE] is always recommended. > Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead > and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this > time. > > If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with > guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource > naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring > all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify > this decision. I don't understand. The Hadoop community released a subproject for Incubation. The Incubator accepts or denies the proposal. In case of denial, the ball is in the Hadoop field again isn't it? > At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in > terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the > group to vote for an initial chair/VP. Who is "the group"? The list of initial committers? This PMC? The Hadoop PMC? > If they are unsure of their group > yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair > for the first six months, if they rather would do that? I'm still +1 to do proper Incubation. Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
