On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Niall Pemberton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Greg Chase <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The community is of course thinking about it. That is the point of the > >> Incubator program. > >> > >> However, I imagine we will be asking about graduation after the release > of > >> Geode 1.0 GA. > >> > > > > Getting the mechanics of releases right and showing the IPMC that the > > project understand how to do that is important. What I particularly liked > > about this projects 2nd (M2) release was not just the +1 votes, but the > > qualifications that accompanied those votes ("I checked the sigs", "I > built > > & ran the tests" etc) - I see that and it gives me confidence that this > is > > not a rubber stamping exercise, but the project members are exercising > > their responsibilities with care & attention. In terms of meeting the > > graduation criteria, geode will almost certainly have ticked that box in > > terms of graduation with another release. Obviously users place great > > importance and judge releases on labels such as "milestone", "beta" or > "GA" > > etc - but from an ASF perspective these are not relevant as "quality of > > release" is judged on different criteria (licensing, process etc) and by > > those criteria theres no difference between an M1 or a GA release. From > > that perspective, my opinion is that geode is doing a great job and will > > probably have nailed it with the upcoming M3 release. > > > > From what I see, geode has got all its legal ducks in a row (code grants, > > source headers, license compatibility) and so the last and main > graduation > > criteria it needs to meet relate to community[1]. IMO this is the most > > difficult (and important) of all the criteria, its also more subjective > to > > judge and from a project that entered from a single company the hardest > to > > satisfy. From what I see on the mailing list, this is a great community > and > > meets the "openness" criteria - its a welcoming place, people > > discuss/disagree and come to a consensus in the way that the ASF expects. > > The one question I have is "are all the discussions/decisions being > brought > > to this mailing list?" - as an observer, it looks to me like that is > > happening - but only the project members can confirm that. If the answer > is > > yes, then thats another tick in the box. New committers have been voted > in > > and (AIUI) this is not just from Pivotal, but other "legally independent" > > people, so growing the community is also met. Lastly is the "diversity" > > question and this is probably the hardest to give a definitive answer. > The > > IPMC seems to have moved from the prescriptive criteria laid out in the > > link below to a more judgement based approach and it would be a good idea > > to discuss this with your mentors and/or sound out the wider IPMC on how > > geode can meet this criteria. Obviously the more new independent people > you > > recruit, the better for this - but would be good to know how near or far > > you are from meeting that. The one thing I would say is that alot of > people > > were put on the initial incubator proposal (70+ I believe) and I would > > recommend reviewing that when you decide to go for graduation and > removing > > anyone who has not been active (easy enough to vote them back in later if > > they start contributing) as I'm sure that will help with the balance as > > well as reflecting reality. > > Niall, thanks a million for your extremely thoughtful reply. With my > mentor hat on, > I wholeheartedly agree with all the points you made. I really do think > the community > is on a trajectory to graduate relatively soon. > Yes we need to get this lot kicked out of the incubator and self-governing as a TLP :) Given that, now would be a perfect time to start bringing up concerns > and suggestions > along the lines of what you've mentioned in your last sentence. > Reflecting on this, I think the last sentence I wrote "...removing anyone..." could come across a bit harsh and be misleading. On a TLP there are both "committer" and "PMC member" roles[1]. Giving commit is solely within the remit of the PMC and there is no need to take that away from anyone. The board and the resolution to create a new TLP is only concerned with PMC members and so I would suggest putting forward active people on the proposed PMC when it comes to putting together a resolution to graduate. Probably the best way to do this is (when the time comes) to ask people who wants to be on the PMC and let that group self select - which I would guess would pretty much be the active people. Niall [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles > > Thanks, > Roman. >
