Hi guys!!! given my Lab experience, I'd say that Lab just needs more advertisement across the whole ASF community; not everybody has an ASF horizontal vision so, often, people are focused only on the project they're following, neglecting what's going around. The proposed workflow sounds reasonable (at least to me):
1) propose a new lab; 2) once accepted, working on it until reached a working PoC; 3) discussing on Incubator the project, looking for people interested on working on it; 4) marking the Lab complete, start a new Incubator. What is missing is 0) make people aware they have the opportunity to create a Lab So, why Lab instead of GitHub/GCode/SF... ? I think it is a matter of trust/warranty. In my case, if I would have started the Lab outside the ASF, simply it wouldn't have worked: I was an individual proposing something new, with no community at all behind, ... would you have be interested on an outside one-man-show project? Nope, I'd say :P At the same time, Lab should be less restrictive (IMHO) to give the opportunity to committers to play with plugins/external tools/... for already existing projects that don't have their own Sandbox to give experiments, that would be yet another interesting workflow: 1-2) as above 3) proposing & discussing it to the Project X 4) marking the Lab complete, move the code to Project X Of course, the workflow is optimized for the best case, I didn't take in consideration cases where both Incubator/Project X reject the idea :P Yet another advantage I see is, since both codebase were born inside ASF, people don't need to submit the SoftwareGrant; IMHO it's not a trivial consideration. Just my 0.02 cents, have a nice day!!! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't follow why people going elsewhere is a problem. > > The problem is more, people are not going into the labs. If they > succeed and go outside later is another thing. > >> This is a place where ideas can get started, but it isn't a place where >> ideas should be continued. If the lab is successful, it should move to >> somewhere it will gain a community, and that isn't labs. > > Thats correct. if a lab becomes successful, it should do something else. > > But: > - the entry for a lab is to strict (only experimental features, see > discussion between Ross and myself) > - how can a lab become successful with so much rules (no releases)? > > >> I see it as entirely fine that labs should go quiet from time to time, and >> believe the only thing we really should do in this situation perhaps is >> advertise labs more widely. > > We should first discuss if there is still a real need of labs before > putting more effort in it - my 2 cents > > Cheers > Christian > >> >> Regards, >> Graham >> -- >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
