On Feb 14, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess I am too late here, but fwiw, I agree strongly with Rich's > comment. I would much rather see the checklisty stuff incorporated into > either the use cases or the main doc somewhere and not presented as "things > 'we' are looking for". I do not like at all the statement in the intro to > the new doc, > "However, having an idea of what red flags we're looking for > in a project can be a helpful way to start looking for places to mentor, > and sharpen, our projects."
You are definitely not too late here, and I would certainly hope that nobody feels that I have any more say than anybody else in what we do here. I instigated. I am not the leader. Please own the document, and edit it in whatever way you see fit. > > That is absolutely the wrong message to give. Who is "we"? This kind of > thing sets the tone of the working group as some kind of external policing > / inspecting function. That will not help. > Yes, that is indeed my concern. > What *will help* is people showing up, listening and coming up with useful > suggestions for how to solve problems that communities are facing. In some > cases, that may actually mean helping them explain why their way of doing > things is perfectly fine. I was shocked, for example, by "too many release > candidates" on the list of "red flags." That is ridiculous, IMO, and > nobody's business but the community. A sharpener certainly might help > share experience about how other projects have handled packaging, testing > and deployment issues, but just jumping in because a few releases have > burned through a few RC numbers makes zero sense. Please do take that document as a 0.001 version, and edit/update/delete it as you see fit. We are in the “what if” phase here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
