Hi, I found this comment enlightening.
> When a release is done in the incubator, we could say that it has met > our criteria for open source (legal bits all in order) but not for open > development (community not yet sufficient for sustainability). I voted against the proposal before, but thinking about it, I might have been a bit confused. if the IP clearance is fine but the community is unproven, is there really a problem with including a dependency via Maven? As a parallel (if contrived) example. For example, as a user of Velocity, which includes commons-lang, I care about the community of Velocity. I also care (very important!) that all downloaded code has the the right IP clearance. However, I really don't care if commons-lang has a community or not (no offence to the Commons folks, this is just an example). If I am using Velocity, I assume the Velocity community will help me. WILL On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 14:41 +0200, Jukka Zitting wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Branching off from the release distribution vote. > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > This vote has made it quite clear that we have a much deeper > > > disagreement over the status of incubating releases, and that we > > > really should reach some consensus on that before nailing down > > > decisions on release distribution. > > > > AFAUI there are three positions that people are advocating: > > > > a) Releases with no other strings than the ALv2 attached > > b) Releases with requirements to notify downstream users > > c) No releases > > > > Personally I think that position b conflicts with both the letter and > > the spirit of ALv2, and that position c is damaging to incubating > > projects. Also, if a was not an option, I'd rather opt for c than b as > > I think c is at least a logically consistent position. > > I think there's more to it that that. We need to consider the two > aspects of what Apache stands for: open source and open development. > > When a release is done in the incubator, we could say that it has met > our criteria for open source (legal bits all in order) but not for open > development (community not yet sufficient for sustainability). > > Then, we have two groups of people who relate to releases - developers > and users. Clearly, questions have been raised about how these two > groups of users should relate to, and what they should expect of, an > incubator release - that is one for which the ASF is not yet prepared to > vouch for the community behind it. > > So, we end up with two sets of questions: > > * Do we want users to have easy access to these releases, or to make > it difficult? Users need to know about the fact that Apache does not > yet vouch for the community behind these releases. How do we go > about ensuring that they do know and understand? > * How do we encourage developers and their communities to move as > quickly as possible towards graduation without placing unnecessary > and even arbitrary restrictions around them? > > These really the principles that need to be addressed before we can go > on to discuss the details of how we intend to treat a release. > > Upayavira > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com
