I have always thought that there would be value in reviewing the topics in our project proposals.
Ideally, we would review them to make sure all questions are open ended, rather than having a clear expected answer: Could we replace "Inexperience with Open Source" (which begs the answer, "No, we have experience", with "Please detail your level of experience with Open Source development" Could we replace "Homogenous Developers" with "please detail the roles the proposed committers have within which organisations" Then replace "reliance upon salaried developers" with "Please detail the spread of volunteer vs paid contributor amongst the proposed committers". etc, etc. Sure, people will work out what the "expected" answers are, but I always felt that there was something definitely wrong with the topic headings as we ask them. Upayavira On Mon, Dec 22, 2014, at 08:59 AM, jan i wrote: > On Monday, December 22, 2014, Sean Owen <sro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I was going to ask the same. I've seen ~5 proposals now, and was > > surprised to see how they all copied and pasted the same boilerplate > > to answer several points, including this stanza about risk of > > excessive fascination with the brand. > > > being one that just championed a project, I can say that this question > was > the least understandable, I only understood the difference after a > discussion. Maybe we could word it better. Something along the lines what > does brand apache mean to the project, compared to the apache way. > > > > > I also suspect that there is excessive fascination, and that paying > > lip service to it as a risk is not really sufficient. That may be > > another discussion. > > > > But concretely: what about just asking proposers to not copy and paste > > past proposals? Surely it's not so much to ask the proposed project to > > address, individually and from scratch, the issues raised by the > > proposal process. Or, explicitly ask the proposal to address why the > > project should be part of the ASF, now -- that is, what *else* besides > > becoming "Apache Foo" is the motivation? > > i think the question is a good idea. copy/paste is hard to avoid on some > of > the questions. > > rgds > jan i > > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > I was wondering... What we *REALLY* want are projects > > > that are interested more in The Apache Way than in the > > > Apache Brand. We need to make it more clear, somehow, > > > that new projects want to enter the ASF because they > > > approve of, and want to follow, the *how* of creating > > > projects and communities. Lately, it appears, that we > > > have graduated projects which are more interested in > > > simply being able to add 'Apache' to their name, and > > > then deride/minimize/ignore/dispute most/all of the > > > aspects of The Apache Way which is what made the Apache > > > brand so valuable and noteworthy. > > > > > > Maybe we need to change the proposal guide. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > -- > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
