On Monday 24 March 2008, Carl Trieloff wrote: > > Huh? The graduation guide says "there are at least 3 legally > > independent committers" and I don't see that with Qpid. > > Dan, > > I think it has been proved that there are at least 3 legally > independent committers - please > can you revise your statement and/or vote.
I honestly still have doubts. The only one that has come out as being POSSIBLY independent is Rupert, but he IS listed as representing JPMC on the amqp-0.10 spec. But in any case, even if he is, that's "very bare minimum". When CXF was at "very bare minimum", we were asked to keep up the good work. When Tuscany was at the "very bare minumum", they were asked to keep working. Why should Qpid be held to a lower standard than the other projects? Do I think Qpid is on the right track? Yes. Do I think Qpid has a good plan in place to address the diversity? Yes Do I think Qpid can implement that plan? Certainly Does any of that have any impact on a graduation vote today? Nope Put it this way, lets look at a different "requirement": legal vetting of code. Would we allow a podling to graduate with just a "plan" to address the legal vetting of code? I don't think so. Why should a "plan to address diversity" be any different? Qpid has accepted code from a bunch of diverse people. That's true. There are diverse people contributing patches and ideas and such. That's also true (and very good to see). None of that has any impact on the gradation vote either. You can harp on it all you want, but it's completely irrelevant until the project has gone through and mentored them into becoming full project members. IMO, Qpid should take the next couple months and really concentrate on executing the plan, mentor the potential commiters, and grow the community. Come back in a couple months with an expanded community and I'm sure the vote would go through without a hitch. What harm is there in doing that? I think you would exit the incubator on a much better position without and questions and I think the incubator folks would feel better about it. I think as a project/community, it would feel better to exit on good terms with everyone rather than people having lingering doubts and a "barely squeaked by" type vote. I guess the question I have is: what's the rush? Why push something through when there are serious concerns being raised? Being in the incubator doesn't prevent you from doing anything so I cannot really see any harm in that. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
