Eelco Hillenius wrote: >> I understand that there are some specific circumstances in this case, >> but in general I believe this sort of criteria is why we get >> complaints that it's impossible to "innovate" at Apache any more. We >> require all the grunt work of innovation to occur outside of Apache.
Well, the criticism I've seen was essentially, incubator folk make one specific objection, committee 'huddles' to come up with the "right answer" and keep presenting it through one person. That's not the way ASF projects operate. So the effort was rightly criticized - although we don't really expect everything to flow in an 'asf way' quite so early in the process. Some folks have expressed concerns about community, etc; things I don't think are so important entering the incubator - they are mandatory before the effort would graduate, of course :) >> The issues of an open specification is one thing. But aren't "proven >> an actual community" and "work the standard 'apache way'" graduation >> requirements, not entry requirements? Yes. My concerns relate to the specification. Some others voted -1 for some other reasons that don't concern me nearly as much. But some of the specs issues really have got to be worked out before one peep of specs related suggestions pollute the minds of the developers in their dev@ list. I think I've finally clarified these sufficiently, please correct me if I'm wrong. And as far as the openness of the spec itself - this is, too, an issue. I will continue voting -1 until we really determine that - unlike JCP - we can have a no-NDA scenario with respect to TCKs etc. And that, unlike Oasis, the implementation is covered by the grants, not strictly the spec. And, ideally, that IP grants under the ASL will cover those participating in the spec from future problems; that the spec itself will not be entirely corp-based; and worse yet, that horridly offensive language is modified in the project proposal/charter. Yes - I totally understand that the contributors are coming at this from an entirely corporate perspective, and I'm really not 'dissing' that. One of the projects I mentor, stdcxx, started the same way. I'm only pointing out that we need to put the right foot forward before voting this project up and in. Missteps are expected and excusable :) Finding a home before the collation of the willing says "hey! here's a project!" would have been one alternative. Spelling out where they plan to land would be another viable alternative. Leaving this in limbo leaves some of us understandably wary. Tweaking the language to sound less corporate, but leaving the ASF and new project vulnerable to corporate dictatates is no more palatable than the current language :) I know your mentor totally understands what I mean, so I don't doubt this can be corrected, through discussion -here- on this list, the name question resolved, and the incubation accepted unanimously. You really had some great things to add, and I totally agree with you we should consider adding those qualifications - after we are done pondering the incubation of this new project. Oh - and you replied on the primary vote thread - we really need to focus the s/n ratio for the counters to track the outcome :) Yours, Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
