On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:54 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 only see a discussion about one specific project and I also see a board member in that discussion saying that having a company over represented is not an issue and the number of committees from a single company is not a concern. > > Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated? 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'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. > I think you have to judge this project by its actions. One example was that the documentation for Geode was hosted on a company website - we raised this as a concern and they donated the whole Geode technical docs to the ASF. Really though I believe its about how they run the project. I think they have created an open and welcoming community that will should attract more contributors and reduce the dominance of one company. I also don't believe theres anything left for them to learn here. At some point we have to trust them to govern themselves and holding them here until they meet a specific percentage diversity doesn't serve any purpose. Niall > > -- > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >