Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > That's code. What about community, Torsten? What is the Community? It
has
> > been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects. Is that to
> > change? We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right?
We
> > need to keep that as a single community managing libraries of common
> > components.
> Exactly! That's exactly why I think the Incubator does not work well
> for small components. The Incubator is to build a community.
Exactly. We agree.
> all it's the whole Commons that is the community.
We agree, again. :-)
> So is it OK for commons to play mini Incubator with it's sandbox? I am
> not sure I like this either.
OK, why not? Just asking. You and I have having a civil discussion. :-)
> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
> go through incubation or not. I guess what I am trying to say is that
> there is something in the middle we need to find a procedure for.
OK, why don't you lay out some parameters?
FWIW, *ALL* new code coming into the ASF does go through the Incubator, but
that is because we are the repository for IP clearance; the actual clearance
is done by the PMC clearing it.
> Be it at Commons or at the Incubator. I don't care. It's just that
> Commons is probably more likely to get these kind of contributions and
> we need to find a procedure on how to deal with it. I think the idea
> behind this thread was more to reach out to the Incubator experience
> to find a proper way how to deal with such contributions.
We have provisional communities, but not committers. How is it different if
a new project comes into the Incubator and they have commit access to that,
versus it goes into Commons Sandbox, and they are granted karma for it
there? Is it just a matter of access control? Is that what this boils down
to in the end?
> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
> or even a sub project
We agree! We have several projects here that I believe belong in Commons!
> Teaching people "The Apache Way" after they got commit access sounds
> as bad as forcing the original authors to keep sending patches
Torsten, my point is that when they land here, they do get commit access,
and then they learn the ASF away. So, again, is this just about access
control to delineate what they can do?
-----
>>> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
>>> to join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain
>>> trust with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
>>> committer.
>> Trust related to what?
> Trust in that they understand how Apache works.
We don't expect them to know that here, and we make them an ASF Committer
first.
> [The new Committer might] also the person that could have potential code
> ownership problems, could try to lead the project like they were used
> to before and so on. I would not consider them more trustworthy in
> that sense just because they brought the code.
OK, perhaps we're getting somewhere ...
Torsten, are you asking that we setup something like Incubator Commons
Sandbox into which code goes, we make them Committers, the Mentors (likely
from Commons) work with them here, then when you are satisfied that they get
it, you (upon vote of the PMCs) svn move the code from Incubator Commons
Sandbox to Commons Sandbox? Is this the idea?
> > They do need to do is become indoctrinated in the community, and if it
is
> > just a committer or few at a time into an entire community, Apache
Commons
> > ought to be able to handle that.
> So we just hand out commit access and hope (or try to make them)
> behave?
LOL Well, that *is* what we do here, isn't it? That part is just access
control.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
