Just trying to understand what is being suggested... Is it that, should a podling decide it can't go for TLP, and that another TLP is prepared to accept them, then effectively the responsibility that the incubator PMC has is transferred to that TLP. *They* need to incubate the new community into its own. The process of creating a new community and integrating one into another are completely different tasks that require differing approaches.
Have I got it right? Upayavira On Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 05:52 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 2/27/13 9:44 AM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >[..snip..] > > Thanks for the examples. > > >Each case differs. I can agree that we do not want to encourage new > >podlings to come in with Plan A to be graduating into an existing TLP, > >but I don't think we should exclude a future case should it be strong > >enough to convince the IPMC. > > TL;DR here -- your point above is the one that I am trying to > make/echo/make strong (minus the excluding part for me > which I'll get to in a sec). > > Point: "we do not want to encourage new podlings to come in with Plan A > to > be graduating into an existing TLP" > > That's my entire point, and I think Greg's +1, and Bertrand's +1, etc. > Anyone can moan and groan to go even > further than that. I've been around the Foundation long enough to know > that may take time/effort, etc. YMMV. > That said, if another future situation comes up I don't think at least in > my current POV that I would be > convinced that that's ever good and that's based on my experience first > hand being in many situations recently > that involved this (Lucene, Hadoop, Nutch, Tika, etc.) > > The rest of the scenarios are dealt with at a time that there is an > actual > concrete example by the parties involved that > need to be. Until then, we are making conjecture. > > The outcome I'd like to see is to echo and promote what I've labeled > Point: above. Seems I'm not alone. We'll see > what happens and you're welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > > > > > >> That's the whole point of the "sponsoring PMC" portion of the Incubator > >> proposal, from the beginning, to declare > >> the intent to graduate into a existing TLP - otherwise that section > >> wouldn't be needed and the answer would always > >> be Incubator PMC. For the record, since the whole umbrella project > >>thing, > >> most of the sponsoring (I can name perhaps 1-5) > >> incoming Incubator podlings are all Incubator PMC sponsored, for intent > >>to > >> graduate to TLP. > >> > >> On the graduating into existing TLP end, I don't think that makes sense > >>- > >> apparently at least 2 other people don't either judging by +1s and > >>words. > >> I would like to fix that. But, I don't think I've ever seen #1 where > >>they > >> haven't already declared that their intent from the beginning. > >> > >>> > >>> (2) Receiving PMC votes to accept IP - if not cleared then it accepts > >>> that responsibility. > >> > >> If PMCs can accept the type of "podling sized" IP contribution then I > >> think that the Incubator is a pointless committee. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
