On Friday 02 September 2005 04:11, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > I just would like to hear more thoughts from people about whether > there are things we could do to improve our process of approving new > proposals as the ASF continues to grow.
Whether or not the ASF needs both belt and suspenders seems to be a tricky task. On one hand, the ICLA requires the contributor to be the original author, but on the other hand it seems that this is not enough, in case such code have had some kind of public exposure. I just don't get it. Why does that matter, compared to the "original contributor" outright stealing the code from somewhere else? We assume that this doesn't happen, and why should we therefor assume that a package for a new subproject that a existing ASF committer has hacked together, gained some fellow ASFers support for and ready to jump in 'somewhere' would require "audit trail", signatures from employer and what not. IMVHO, let the committers experiment outside ASF repositories without requirement to go through Incubation. As for commercial codebases turned OpenSource, projects sponsored by companies, projects wanting to implement specifications, projects hosted elsewhere prior to coming to ASF and codebases with many, possibly independent, authors is what I thought the Incubator was initially for. Here I have no problem that a very rigorous process is put in place, with strict requirements for graduation, PROVIDED that those are well-known, objective/measurable and understood. Another danger that may lurk in the shadows, is that the "Apache Way" gets diluted by too fast influx of new projects/committers, and mentors/champions taking on more than they should. Not sure if it is true, but I get the feeling that more and more projects have "passive committers" to increase numbers and gain credibility. My devaluing 2 cents. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
