On 15 January 2012 20:55, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> +1 > > Voting to terminate a project through lack of success sends a very > clear message. Being 'terminated' is a very clear and public > punishment, both for Mentors and for the project.
I'm not sure why people (not just you Rob) are fixating on the idea of voting to terminate a podling. That is currently and will always be an action of last resort. It is not a new option. We've already done it for failed projects. This discussion is about being clearer about what we expect to see projects and mentors doing to avoid having such a vote called. It is not about automatically booting long lived projects (at least that is how I am reading comments on this and related threads). As an example, Wookie, is a long lived project. It is not ready for graduation. However, I believe that the projects board reports indicate positive community building activities with measurable results. Furthermore I believe there is sufficient evidence of mentors being actively engaged with these efforts. Consequently, I have zero concerns about the IPMC calling a vote to "boot" the project. The only way I can say this with such certainty is that I am a mentor and fully engaged with the project. I can be equally certain about some other long lived projects where I am not a mentor. However, their board reports are equally (or even more) informative and as a result I am confident nobody will call to boot those projects. However, there are other projects I am unable to evaluate into his way. Here we have to go on trust because board reports are uninformative. My concern, and that of others AIUI, is that for these projects mentors appear not to be engaged as reports are not signed off or are so weak it is unlikely that they discussed them with the community. Without the support we are supposed to be giving these projects will they ever graduate? [ASIDE: I have this problem with some TLP board reports too, but that is out of scope here] I don't believe anyone is suggesting that these projects should be booted. I believe they are saying that we must do a better job of either a) communicating the project status to those outside the project or b) giving the project adequate mentorship (whichever is appropriate) In *extreme* cases, where the project is just not going to go anywhere for whatever reason, then we need to consider the long term affects on the Incubator and the foundation as a whole. I don't imagine the end result of these discussions will be suddenly booting projects out. I imagine we will remodel the incubator and its processes appropriately and then communicate to projects that are "at risk" what they need to do in order to avoid any problems during the coming x months, it will not be to call a [VOTE] to boot project foobar from the incubator. Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
