On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:54:02PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: ... > From a legal standpoint, the Incubator was created to ensure that we had our > i's dotted and t's crossed. Beyond that, I have little opinion. IMO, the > Incubator is more about process and checklists, than warm fuzzies and > "teaching about the community". Docco on the community, its expections, and > the ASF culture should be provided by the Incubator to *ALL* of the ASF, not > just those projects which are arriving. The culture is all of the ASF, and > the entire ASF participates; there are a lot of things that new committers > to existing projects need to learn. Not just the committers arriving via the > incubated projects. > > > Constructive criticism of the day: establish the checklist, get projects > signed off, and move 'em along. Very objective, and very satisfying to those > involved. > > > But to call it a failure? That's too harsh. I think there are certainly > problems in the basic model. You have a bunch of highly-motivated people > associated with incoming projects. On the "other side of the fence" you have > a bunch of unrelated volunteers. It's a recipe for status quo. With a more > limited mission, and an objective progress meter, then the Incubator is > about verifying process rather than needing to participate. > > There is a definite need for the Incubator, but I think the people who > advocated it as a "community builder" need to reassess that concept.
Agreed. Is there then any reason why project can't 'incubate' on non-Apache hardware? Sourceforge? This would remove the most (potentially) unfair aspect of incubation: that projects can be rejected, and must then relocate all their infrastructure off Apache. --Jeff > Cheers, > -g > > -- > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
