Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800: > Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation > effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no > harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? > I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising > zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. >
For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers). And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM > > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: > > Small but otherwise happy podlings)] > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith <stuk...@stoo.me.uk> > > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic > > patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one > > way > > or the other soon. > >> > >> If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no > >> question, they both have my vote on that question. > > > > As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is > > safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken > > in the Incubator. > > > >> If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and > >> paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with > >> little or no change, then I strongly object. > > > > ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC > > has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that > > encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. > > > > IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it > > breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato > > has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC > > community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. > > > > (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any > > podling which leaves the main sequence...) > > > > Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. > > A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient > > restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. > > > > Robert > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
