On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote: > In any case it seems like a good idea to impose some sort of soft time limit > on the continuation strategy.
Prospective podlings are well-advised to consider that if things don't work out, a project which might have been perfectly viable elsewhere for years to come will have to deal with both the disruption of a name change and the stigma of having a big red termination stamp applied by the Incubator PMC. > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html I've always disliked how that document makes a big deal about termination reflecting poorly on the project, e.g.: If you receive a recommendation for termination then you have a problem. A podling's contributors put in months or years worth of work donating their time and creative output to the Foundation, and then on termination, instead of celebrating what was achieved, we encumber the resumes of our volunteers by permanently enshrining their project's "problems". Is it any wonder that podlings linger when we make the alternative so unpleasant? Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
