Trying to get constructive on this, by basing the replies on *facts*, and not opinions taken from an experience done long ago.
First of all, let me remove the false statements:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
The project must vote (or at least should). The Incubator PMC must vote. The accepting project or board must vote. Thatıs three houses voting for project promotion.
Wrong. The Incubator does not vote.
To get in the Incubator you need two parties agreeing, that is the project and Apache. For Apache the vote can come from a PMC or the board, but a further vote from the Incubator is not needed.
I don't see how we can get down to less than two votes.
Rich Bowen wrote:
The goal of the incubator is to help people in. Part of that is, necessarily, determining that some projects maybe should not come
in. I don't see this as a bad thing.
> > I do. Interested sponsoring members should determine that. Not > some...."administrator" or committee of them.
And that's what happens. *If* there is no PMC that accepts it the Incubator will vote for it. A single member cannot accept a project for Apache AFAIK, but a PMC may (the Chair can act on behalf of Apache).
...
a fuzzy idea with many different opinions on when a project gets out or not.
There is no "opinion". The decision is based on the facts exposed in the STATUS file.
...* Exposes the Foundation to undue legal issues by protecting projects PRIOR to their legal issues being sorted out.
I just favor not accepting them at all until they've done their work.
This should be the case. Auditing on codebases has to be done *before* any code enters Apache. People *sign* CLAs that state that they have the right to put that code in.
So we do *not* accept that a tainted codebase enters our CVS.
If problems occur after it has been committed, we must ensure that the issue is solved ASAP, eventually also resorting to extreme measures like revoking commit privs or closing the project down. Exactly like any other Apache project.
Note that is a project is to enter the Incubator, it has Apache members that stand by it, and guarantee that the project is not a "fake". You have been saying that we should stand by the members that want the project in, so why not in this case?
Now for the constructive part.
...* Hurts already healthy communities by putting them back into an alphaish state.
If I had a mature project ready for production which had been so for a number of years and then I said "I want to be part of Apache".... You'd put it in the "incubator" and tell the world it needed incubation? Pretty ugly perception that pushes about a mature project.
I'd like everyone to think about this comment, as it has been said basically by all projects coming through the Incubator, in one way or the other. OTOMH the last have been Axion and Logging projects.
MHO is that we do not require that a project be "under" the Incubator urls and resources. This was said to ensure that they don't misuse the "regular" Apache brand, but if it remains "outside" of Apache during Incubation, the problem is equally solved.
One thing is having access to the Incubator for the status file and creating Apache resources, which has to be done, and another is making the project "operate" under these same resources during Incubation, which is not necessary.
What do others think?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
