Stephen,
You will see from my last e-mail that I've lost
the plot somewhere, but some thoughts because I
can't resist.
I was looking at the same thing yesty, but from a slightly different angle.
I thought (maybe wrong???) that Incubation was
not about "how good is this code base/product".
If something is accepted into incubation, then
we (or rather the ASF) thinks that the basic idea
is a good one.
Incubation is about "The Apache Way". Are we
doing things the way they need to be done, and are
we building the community the way it needs to be
to thrive within the Foundation.
It is also about protecting the legal back-side of
the foundation. Have we done everything we need
to to ensure that the code being released is now
owned by Apache etc.
Take the second first. That (it would appear) is
done fairly early in the incubation process. I
think with XMLBeans it's pretty much done. All
code has been transferred to Apache, and all CLAs
have been signed. So there should be no legal
reason not to do a release.
However I would absolutely argue that we should
not be allowing *any* form of release, whether
informal or formal or CVS without having sign off
from the Shepherd (and possibly the Incubator PMC)
indicating that all legal issues are covered off.
Now the first - community. Does it really matter
if we have a good community there or not for the
purposes of a release? Apache is already standing
beside this code in some form - it's in the CVS
and it has an Apache License stuck to the front of
every file.
Sure we might not be sure that the code base is a
"great set of code", but are we sure of that for
any project in Apache? We rely on the local
community of a sub-project/project to make that
call. And anyway - that's not the purpose of
incubation.
I dunno. I'm not the expert here, and I've seen
good arguments both ways. It just seems to me
that the only absolute argument that should be
placed in policy (which I'm now working on :>)
should be that no release in any form may be
undertaken until there is sign of that all legal
ownership issues have been covered off.
Everything else could almost be case by case.
Cheers,
Berin
>
> From: Stephen McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: incubator, exit and publication
> Date: 26/09/2003 16:54:29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> I'm been following the messages concerning exit criteria and releases
> and I see a conflict. If a project is under incubation, then it is not
> accepted into Apache and therfore the content that is generating is
> simply content under observation - not Apache content. As such, how can
> a such a project release any content under an Apache license and
> presume the endorcement and protection of the ASF? My personal
> conclusion is that anything under incubation cannot do anything in
> relationship to Apache concerning publication, and that the Incubator
> PMC would be at fault if it were to endorce the publication of any
> artifact related to an incubated project.
>
> Can anyone explain to me the error implied by these assumptions?
>
> Stephen.
>
> --
>
> Stephen J. McConnell
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
