On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What would make a project become an Apache Commons Incubator "podling" > vs. an Apache Commons Sandbox project?
New code -> Sandbox. Existing code outside Apache -> Incubator. > Is that something we decide on > a case-by-case basis? Perhaps we could just better formalize the > sandbox's charter so that maybe we flag projects as "donated" rather > than "grown" inside the sandbox? If a project is considered > "donated", then one of the requirements of graduation to "proper" > would be that the IP is verified. That's the other option I think we have. Have our own Incubator (or make the Sandbox to double duty) etc. > However, since the ASF has already considered this and figured out a > process for dealing with this (hence the ASF Incubator), maybe we > should ask them for a "fast-track" or "lite" process for bringing code > in from the outside. Perhaps there could be a process whereby we > figure out if the IP restrictions are okay somewhat quickly, but the > community isn't necessarily in place (I think that is primarily the > other restriction)? We do want some community checking though. CSV is my example of something that should have gone through the Incubator. The donators should have been able to get ASF committership while it was in the Incubator and there would have been a small level of community building focus. It didn't fit the sandbox well because it was a largely finished component and the sandbox is all about developing or assembling new code currently. > Perhaps we could ask for an "Apache Commons > Fastrack" process as part of the Incubator? Definitely the aim here I think. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
