Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Cliff,
- change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
charter) to include approving of all new projects
To quote (or paraphrase) Roy, it is not the Incubator PMC's role to second
guess other ASF PMCs when it comes to introducing new ASF projects.
- ensure all proposals use the same standard template
Fine.
- add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or
outside the ASF.
To what end? I know what is motivating this. In my view, any group that
wants to part of the ASF, under our IP and Community policies, is welcomed.
The ASF should not be in the business of forbidding people to work on things
here just because someone else feels that it should be happening in their
fiefdom. We don't even require uniqueness within the ASF, much less between
us and other groups. Should JAMES insist that the HTTP Server project shut
down mod_smtpd?
And what if such a project involves forking another communities code and
claiming some of their committers? Does it not concern you _how_ that
happens, and how it makes the ASF look? In my mind, it isn't a question
of whether or not a project should start, but that the ASF should _know_
the baggage that a project will bring with it, and the issues it might
bring in relation to other projects, so that we can ensure that the
starting of the new project maintains rather than degrades our relations
with other projects.
That's all this is about in my book. If I were to be in a position to
decide about an incubating project, I'd like to know who might be
offended by the starting of that project _before_ I make my decision -
even if I decide to accept it. It just makes life easier, and more
predictable all-round.
consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
knows there's a proposal that could be controversial
I am in favor of liaisons with other communities, but even making the
judgment call required above is claiming a subjective value.
Well yes. That's the judgement call that ultimately is going to have to
come from the original proposing PMC, or the people making the proposal.
They're the ones who know the landscape. Hence the need for questions on
the proposal template to prompt them to tell us.
require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
could have any chance of media attention (either because of there
overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
statement with some other organization).
EVERY project should involve the PRC. The PRC is entirely underused, even
if overcommitted.
And don't forget that contrary to what was said on this thread, existing
PMCs *can* start their own projects from existing ASF committers and new
codebases that are developed within the ASF infrastructure without going
through the Incubator. The motivation for your e-mail would apply to those
as well.
Not so much in my mind. If there's no interaction in terms of code or
committers, but only in 'subject area', then it is more just plain old
competition. We may want to consider competitors, but this discussion
isn't about competitors, it is about people who might be directly
affected by our actions - e.g we fork their code.
Regards, Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
