On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: >>... > >> Huge +1 to the above. Very well said and is exactly how I now start >> thing about the problem myself: Incubator is what's needed when >> there are gaps in straight to TLP. Lets identify what those gaps >> > > There is one thing the Incubator cannot solve: ASF Members on the > direct-to-TLP PMC. That has been the primary metric the Board used for > those Resolutions (Zest and Serf). There are a few other direct-to-TLP > occurrences which was only about moving code/communities around within the > Foundation (STeVe, Whimsy, ORC, etc, lately, and when we blew up umbrellas > (eg. Jakarta, XML, Hadoop)).
I agree about the metric, but believe it can be generalized. Here is how I put it: "What is required is some sort of testimonial from a diverse set of people that we trust attesting to essentially what the contents of the Maturity Model covers." I see having a large number of ASF Members as being an example where we get that input first hand. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that a large number of ASF Members being direct participants is an absolute and non-negotiable requirement for direct to TLP. In fact, some of the blown up umbrellas may be counter examples. > So... I would not look at the Incubator as "get the podling community to > look like a candidate for direct-to-TLP", as it really can't do that. > > The ultimate question, I believe, is: "does the code/community operate > according to Foundation principles?" Indeed. >>... > > Cheers, > -g - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
