Noel J. Bergman wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 12:14 PM: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Noel J. Bergman wrote: >>> Leo Simons wrote: >>>> Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>>> I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from. >>>> >>>> me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D >>> >>> IMO, there ought to be a sufficient independent community such that >>> if commercial interests drop out, the project can continue. >> >> And the creation of such a community should be a key goal in >> the incubation. > > As I see it, that is part of the definition of a healthy community, > which is one of the two primary goals for incubation, the other being > IP clearance.
I agree, but IP clearance is somewhat easier to define. I think the problem we are faced with is determining how to define a "healthy community" when used as a criterion for exiting the incubator. Many of us would say we know it when we see it; but, what should our policy documents say about it? How quantitative do we want it to be (ratio of committers, # of independent committers, user/dev list activity, etc)? The more quantitative it is, the more a new project can know what they have ahead of them and the less familiarity with the project's community is required to cast an informed vote on graduation (just look up the numbers). The less quantitative the rules are, the more room the voting members have to consider the "know it when you see it" view of the community. Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as one about independent committers to allow for vetoes) and then leave the rest up to a voting body that will evaluate graduation against some general guidelines. I also think the voting body should be the PPMC, which is made up of the project's committers, the PMC members of the destination TLP (or the Board if destined to be a TLP itself), and interested members of the Incubator PMC. This means that after meeting some minimum requirements, the project members along with experienced members of the Apache community, who have been watching and participating in the developing project, would evaluate the overall health of the community and vote accordingly. Before Roy says anything ;-), I realize that the PPMC isn't part of the Bylaws and therefore wouldn't mean anything official on its own, but maybe that's where the Incubator PMC would ratify the PPMC's decision with a vote in favor, assuming the basic process was observed. (Sorry to slip the PPMC factor into this discussion, but I've always liked what we came up with last Nov/Dec, and it hasn't been discussed much since then.) Cliff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
