On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> * IPMC informally agrees that the opinion of any TLP prospectively >> admitting a graduating podling as a subproject is of great weight with >> regard to whether the aggregate community situation would meet volume + >> diversity requirements (apologies if this is hard to parse).
i think that factoring in the total community would work when graduating as a sub-project of an existing TLP > Ok, I think the IPMC already is considering this to be a good idea, on > a case by case basis. i'm a little unhappy about the informality of this approach: 1. the incubator is now working ok for larger code bases which aim to graduate as TLPs so we need to take care over bending the rules 2. adopting this informally means that TLPs will still have the dilemma of the judgement call over small codebases with small communities 3. the current podling setup simulates a TLP rather than a sub-project IMHO it would be cleaner and more transparent just to tune the graduation process by introducing two separate tracks (one for potential TLPs and one potential sub-projects) we could do this in a lightweight way by asking podlings to post (when they feel ready to start pushing towadrds graduation) a [PROPOSAL] (to be approved by lazy consensus) for a target track (TLP or sub-project). the IPMC could then transparently treat podlings on each track differently, perhaps by adopting slight variations (for example, for sub-projects perhaps drafting in committers and PMCers from the target project would be useful.) opinions? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
