On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
<snip. > 20 Jul 2011: > > ensure that long running incubating projects actually have a plausible > plan to graduate Thanks - I see now that the pressure for Mentors to active against their best judgment of the interests of the Foundation comes from the board. Apologies for misunderstanding. Projects like Cassandra, River etc get to about 80% of graduation and then find they need time and space to made the last 20%. Looks bad on the plan but for a minority of projects, it happens. Sometimes legal, brand or incubation policy needs to be developed. This often takes months. Sometimes an external factor beyond the control of the community stops development for a period. These sorts of unknown are hard to plan for. Sometimes it takes a while for a community to self-organising or discover its identity and enough active developers. Imposing a plan is particularly delicate in this situation. Have we done a good enough job of making sure the Board understands the negative consequences of publicly terminating active communities who find themselves in one of these situations? Trusting the community and Mentors has worked well in the past. Does anyone have any insight into the problem that the Board thinks it's fixing by this? Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
