I used the whimsy tool to generate the draft proposal included in this thread. Very convenient! My intention was to let this thread sit for the weekend, and start a VOTE thread on Monday if no new discussion activity.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:38 AM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > Will the podling be progressing on a vote in time for the next board report > (7/19)? Please make sure you draft your proposal. You can take a sample > draft from https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/fluo (it's all the way at > the bottom) > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:55 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks, John. Consider this mentor +1 then. > > > > On 7/5/17 7:03 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I have no concerns with Fluo's graduation based on > > the > > > conversation here. > > > > > > John > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:02 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On 7/5/17 1:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > >>> Hi Josh, > > >>> > > >>> I have some questions: > > >>> > > >>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> As a mentor, I consciously avoided an explicit "+1" until we got > some > > >> IPMC discussion. Let me expand: > > >>>> > > >>>> The current members of Fluo are great, get the Apache Way, and are > > >> self-sufficient. I have no concerns over them operating as a TLP -- I > > think > > >> they are ready. However, they have only added a single committer and I > > see > > >> none in the pipeline -- Fluo is defined by the current committers. > > >>> > > >>> (1) Seems to be a niche project as you state below which is just > within > > >> the range of 5 contributors. Am I wrong? > > >> > > >> Yup, that sounds about right. I'm notice three of them being the most > > >> active, but I tend to not watch that closely. > > >> > > >>>> My hesitation is balancing the Incubators goal of "pushing podlings > to > > >> graduate" and ensuring adequate diversity in the podling. This is > > >> especially difficult for Fluo as they're "niche on niche" (it's a > > difficult > > >> dist-sys problem/software, and not many people use the tech they're > > >> building on top of given my view of the world). > > >>>> > > >>>> I realize that this discussion could easily spiral out of control, > > >> turning into some meta-discussion about Incubator goals. I want to > avoid > > >> that. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm looking for some feelings from other IPMC folks about how to > > >> approach the Fluo podling given their specific circumstances. If other > > >> people are also hesitant, I would also be interested in suggestions > > about > > >> what we would concretely change (because I don't know what to suggest > > that > > >> "fix" the diversity issue for them that isn't changing the core of > their > > >> project). If people aren't worried, I'm happy to give an explicit +1. > > >>> > > >>> (2) Has any consideration been given to becoming a project within > > >> Accumulo? Or are the goals of Fluo distinct from and not wholly > > dependent > > >> on Accumulo? > > >>> > > >>> (3) Corollary - it seems a large number of Fluo Initial Committers > were > > >> also Accumulo PMC. (I not intentionally rehashing any prior > > conversation.) > > >>> > > >> > > >> Will leave Christopher's response to (thoroughly) answer this ;) > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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 > > > > >
