On 11/08/2016 11:43 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > Besides, last time I checked there's no such thing as "diversity requirement" > in the graduation. It is indeed being asked here and there, but so far it > isn't an official IPMC requirement.
It's very prominently displayed in our graduation guideline. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community > > And I'd hate to make a "diversity scape-goat" out of the project that has > created a very welcome environment! > > Cos > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:14PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I was looking at Snoot, and some figures jumped at me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the Podling (and the IPMC) satisfied that there is no concern with >>>>>> people affiliated with a single company providing more than 90% of all >>>>>> commits over the past year and, as far as I can tell, the vast majority >>>>>> of tickets and email, as well as a 73% stake in the proposed PMC? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the IPMC satisfied that, should this company opt to not further spend >>>>>> resources on this project, that the project would still be as viable? >>>>>> >>>> Hi Daniel, >>>> >>>> I've observed this project since it joined the incubator and they've worked >>>> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all the issues >>>> raised that could be barriers to their graduation. >>>> >>>> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously in >>>> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm not going to >>>> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better with >>>> served with a wider community, but I think what matters is 1) have they >>>> demonstrated the behaviors we expect and 2) are they moving in the right >>>> direction. Geode is a great community and a pleasure to be involved with >>>> and I would say yes to both of these. I believe they are going in the right >>>> direction to make this project less dependent on one company and except to >>>> change the percentages you've pointed out, theres no purpose left for them >>>> being in the incubator. They've shown that they can manage themselves and >>>> theres enough independent oversight to mitigate concerns which is why I >>>> think we should vote for them to graduate. >>> >>> Given the discussions around single-vendor projects that are raging on >>> board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects that >>> are heavily dominated by a single vendor/company/organization >>> historically cause problems over time. >> >> I think that other discussion addresses a very different set of problems. >> >>> Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated? >> >> I'd rather flip your argument around and say: at this point sitting in the >> Incubator adds no value to the project nor does it teach anything >> new or useful to its PPMC or a community at large. >> >>> Surely we serve the >>> Foundation, and this project, better, by ensuring that this problem >>> (and, yes, it's a problem) is addressed before we grant them TLP status? >> >> I disagree. The Incubator is a place to make sure that the community >> (regardless of its composition) truly understands and practices the >> "Apache Way". As has been suggested on this thread by a number of >> votes from project's mentors and IPMC members embedded in the >> Geode community that mission has been accomplished. >> >> I see no reason to hold the project hostage over the diversity requirement >> simply because it is pointless for IPMC, project and the foundation. >> >>> I'm personally less concerned with the sustainability of the project >>> should the company opt out of working on the project, and more concerned >>> with the kind of monoculture "we own it" problems that we're starting to >>> see crop up in other projects that were allowed to graduate without >>> building the community first. >> >> Then you really should be voting "yes" on this thread. There's a good number >> of us on IPMC who believe that "we own it" is really not a problem with this >> community. >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
