On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 09:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > You speak as if there was no possible way to get into Apache before the > > Incubator. > > That is not what I said. Clearly it could not be true, since the Incubator > was not created until October 2002. > > Neither one of us was present when the Board created the Incubator, but you > can ask and you can read the archives. You will see that the Incubator was > created to address various concerns. I suggest that you read the e-mail > exchange from October 19 through 21, since it applies directly to questions > regarding how new codebases can enter the ASF. > > > I am insisting that the incubation process include the specification > > of a final destination whether as a TLP or within an existing TLP to > > prevent the Incubator from becoming ApacheForge which is something I > > would prefer not to see. > > I understood your opinion, but I disagree with the requirement for an a > priori designation of a final destination. I agree regarding "ApacheForge", > however.
I don't. There is a simple reason why 'ApacheForge' can't happen: our resources are limited, and there will not be enough sponsoring members/ officers to accumulate an unlimited set of projects in the Incubator. > Earlier, you made an comment that "test coverage, clarity of documentation, > and established user base" are "far easier to pinpoint than the vague term > 'community'." Although those are good things, they are not indicative of > what makes a good ASF project, in my opinion. In my mind, key differences > include oversight and collaborative communities. We emphasize Community > over code because we believe that in the long run a healthy Community is > better than an sick one, regardless of how their code compares at any given > point in time. Our rules are intended to support and codify those > principles. In that light, the Incubator helps to prevent "ApacheForge", > rather than cause it. And there is that. > The reason why I asked you how you see the ASF was to see why we might > differ in our opinions, and why you think that something as vitally > important where others do not. > > > How is what I personally see Apache as relevant to my requesting a very > > simple thing of requiring a desired destination within Apache as part of > > the Incubation process. > > Surely you have heard the cliche: "easier said than done." :-) Fulfilling > the requirement may not be as simple asking for it. Generally, there is > some idea, and that is part of the project's STATUS. And that should be enough. Note that for some projects there might be a final destination known, as for others have to become a TLP. There may also be projects that need a new TLP to move into. At first I thought it was a good thing to specify where a project should end up at the start of incubation. The simple fact of the matter is that projects coming here that, simply don't know the complete structure of the ASF and can impossible know where to end up. IMHO, part of incubation is to help understand the structure of the ASF. In that light, we shouldn't put this extra burden of specifying destination on projects entering the Incubator. Sander --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
