On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Nobody is forcing anything. > > > > Personally, I am saying RTC is destructive, and am willing to give every > > podling that message. > > If it is truly destructive, SHOULDN'T you/we be trying to force > something? And if not, doesn't that mean that it isn't really all > that destructive? > I believe that I represent a minority position, so no... I'm not going to suggest changes. I wish to forestall more projects falling into the RTC trap, but (at the moment) don't believe that it makes sense to attempt to apply mandates against RTC upon existing communities. > As a Director, would you consider stop approving reports from ASF > projects that operate under a RTC model? If not, aren't you sending a > mixed message? > I have thought about this, yes. Maybe add a question to the proposal template, on what form they're thinking about (and where I could debate the proposal against RTC). And maybe debate podlings who want to graduate under RTC. But as a Director, if the community is producing releases, then I find it difficult to point to RTC as a problem for that community. It is an unprovable position: there is no way to state their community could be better off under CTR. > > - Sam Ruby > > P.S. To be clear: I am not a fan of RTC when applied to release.next > branches. I'd appreciate your explanation of this, as "most" CTR communities apply RTC to a branch as they prepare a release. What disturbs you about this approach? Cheers, -g
