I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be really clear about their views about several different podling profiles.
a: A reasonably diverse group of 5-7 people start a podling. A year later, they've made a release or two, but no one new has turned up. Mentors attest to good community behavior, openness to patches -- just no one who has done enough to be added to the group. In other words, all good as a prospective TLP except that they've never been through the process of adding someone. b: A group of 3-4, otherwise the same as (a). Thus, a risk of falling below critical mass. c: not even enough people to be a TLP by any stretch of the imagination. I would say, with all respect to Ant, that the Foundation clearly has not put the IPMC in the business of hosting tiny projects like (c). The term 'failure' applies after some period of time. If folks wish that the foundation had a place for such a project, I would submit that this would be a discussion to have with the board as to what that place might be and how it might work. Otherwise, Joe's views seem entirely on point. I think that it would be a good idea to emphasize in the discussion of prospective podlings with small initial groups. If it's really clear from the outset that a failure to grow in 12 months or so will mean an exit, then it will be easier on everyone. I know that some people feel that (a) podlings can just graduate, period. If there are people who disagree, I'd like to know, because it will allow me to give better advice to Accumulo. If I sadly succeed in merely annoying anyone with this post, I'll set my go-away timer for several weeks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
