Is anything wrong with that the PMC is handling this on a project-by-project basis?
Likewise, you could say similar "communicating that status to the larger public community" for just about every aspect of a project's life, and that those are inconsistent across the ASF. * Release cycles * Programming Language * Versioning conventions * Git vs Svn * Number of repositories * Number of release artifacts * Use of issue tracker vs mailing lists * Number of mailing lists in a project * Barrier level for becoming committer and PMC member * Responsiveness to external patches * Maturity level * Build systems * Prerequisites I have always viewed that as a strength rather than a weakness. So my simple question is; Why is software development lifecycle management any different to any of the above? Cheers Niclas On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > Do we have an overview of the whole decision/action process around > retiring each of a podling, a TLP, and a module/subproject within a TLP? > > I know the Attic has technical process documentation - but do we have a > guide for the whole process, starting with either a community member (or > the board!) noticing a project is mostly inactive, to actually deciding > it's not active enough to be maintained, etc.? > > The board regularly sees or hears about projects or modules that aren't > active, and want to retire. But we aren't consistent across the ASF at > communicating that status to the larger *public* community - sometimes > it's just the PMC list that decides and moves to the board. > > Just an idea... > > - Shane > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
