+1 on the proposal itself and how it will go directly through the board I also agree /w what has been said and replied to by both Emmanuel & Alex On Jun 30, 2012 3:32 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit : > >> > >> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and > >> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or > >> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether > >> or not Incubation is even required... > > > > Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV > code > > *knows* about the Apache Way... > > > > Or is this simple non-sense ? > > No I don't think this is non-sense. However note that as Jim pointed > out, the difference here, that would favor the direct TLP route, is > the fact that everyone working on the voting tool are already Apache > Committers and Members. Conceivably they already know the "Apache > Way". Then again a quick incubation process might help get an extra > sanity check from the Incubator. > > Your point makes sense considering outside participants to build a > larger community around the tool. Incubation might be a good > environment for a mass influx of "new to Apache", interested parties > to participate. But it does not sound like they're going to be > directly involved, knocking on our doors immediately. Also there's no > IP to vet. I presume this is more a matter of making the software an > official Apache Product with PMC endorsed releases that other > organizations like OpenStack can use immediately. > > +1 Setup TLP without incubation, yet I can understand arguments for a > quick incubation. > > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
