On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > Heh; yes, you're right. As one of REEF's mentors, I'll add some of my > observations of its community and development. > > The REEF project has built an open, welcoming, and diverse community. > From my sampling of the dev@ list over the last year or so, all design > discussions (including infrastructure, build, and coding conventions) > are at the ASF [1,2,3]. The project also rotates release managers > [4,5], does solid code reviews, and has taken its IP hygiene > seriously. The most common affiliations (Microsoft, Seoul National > University) have not formed cliques, neither have members failed to > bring discussion to the dev list despite shared affiliation [6] and a > significant timezone gap. > > From all I've observed, the project groks the Apache Way and is ready > to be a TLP. -C > > [1] http://s.apache.org/ys > [2] http://s.apache.org/OKo > [3] http://s.apache.org/NQy > [4] http://s.apache.org/Tb5 > [5] http://s.apache.org/iaD > [6] http://s.apache.org/DX7
Chris, thanks much for putting together this documented testimonial! It will be great to have REEF as a TLP. I checked over the resolution and it looks good except for one thing I'm not certain about -- the two scope statements don't agree precisely. One speaks of "a software framework" and the other, "ease of development": >>>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best >>>> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the >>>> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management >>>> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of >>>> open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the >>>> public, related to the ease of development of applications on >>>> top of resource managers. >>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache REEF Project be and hereby is >>>> responsible for the creation and maintenance of a software >>>> framework for application development on top of resource >>>> managers; and be it further In all the other resolutions I've seen, the scope statements are the same. Common sense tells me that this shouldn't be a big deal -- but common sense also tells me that the redundant scope statements in these resolutions are goofy, which is probably the wrong reading for this sort of legalese. :) Was the discrepancy deliberate? If not, perhaps pick the one folks like more and bring the two instances into sync. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
