On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Plus, since the ASF did not watch how Usergrid > was handled when it was external, we (the ASF) has no idea > how "meritocratic" it was...
I have no idea how that is important for *entering* the incubator. One of the core tenets of incubating is to become a meritocratic community. By allowing "jan en alleman" [1] to join the project on the outset without having any previous stake is not meritocratic, nor Apache like, even if they are founders of the foundation. Incoming *existing* communities need to be mentored into becoming Apache communities, not being hammered into them when they are doing their babysteps. > in fact, and I'm sorry to say > this, the viciousness of all this leads me to wonder just > what counted as "merit". Yes, what does count as merit? Having done nothing for a project that has existed for 2 years, just stating "I want to get in" and expecting to be a full fledged committer? Is that the merit Apache values? Does merit not exist because we were not there to observe it? Did the tree not fall because we did not watch it falling? Just because merit was earned outside the foundation should not invalidate it. This was and still is one of my main gripes with the incubator when we brought Wicket to the foundation. > This whole thing started because I made the mistake of > assuming, as Champion, that the Usergrid community was more open > to taking advantage of the proposal phase to ramp up additional > interested developers and leverage their interest, energy > and talents. Those additional interested developers can and should join the dev@ list as soon as it is created. They can already engage the current community and work their way up in the ranks. There is no need to get a commit bit at the outset to show and learn the incoming community all about meritocracy. Perhaps the initial committers list should be split into two: - interested developers - initial committers This way a podling can engage with the interested developers and quickly form an (expanded) community. IMO when an existing project comes in, the initial committers list should consist of the original committers. Anyone interested should be added to interested developers. Empty, new proposals can either start with a list of initial committers or with a list of interested developers who get voted in by the mentors as they engage in a community on dev@. Existing projects can add new interested developers to either list, depending on what their preference is. I'd expect Apache committers with no prior stake in the project to explicitly ask to be listed as merely an interested developer and earn their merit through contribution rather than moving directly to committership. Martijn [1] http://glosbe.com/nl/en/Jan%20en%20Alleman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
