On Monday, April 13, 2015, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> >> On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >> I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In > > To be clear, there were conversations with Jim (as VP Legal) prior to > this submission. The ASF wouldn't accept the software grant until the > Incubator approved the proposal. Pivotal wouldn't release it as ALv2 > until the ASF accepted the grant. > > It's a chicken-and-egg problem - seeing the code through the > click-through evaluation license is the least bad scenario that drives > this proposal forward. > > As a mentor unaffiliated with Pivotal, I'm not worried about the > provenance checks - Pivotal is ready to execute the software grant and > release it as ALv2. i second the opinion of justin, as Mentor I was one of those that suggested this way. The concerns raised below are very similar to my concerns, but they have to with graduation, and not entering Incubator. Most importantly both Mentors and the team are aware of the potential problems. rgds jan i > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > looking at the list of committers -it looks like a whole organisation is > going to move to doing OSS dev. That's a pretty big move. > > Yes, it is. I'm confident in my conversations with the Pivotal team > that they fully understand what will be asked of them. However, as a > mentor, the proof will be in the pudding and will be demonstrated > through the Incubation process...or not. > > > 1. The withdrawal of support for Groovy shows that pivotal have been > ruthless in the past about where to invest their OSS dev. It's a bit > dangerous to list Groovy as a reference for pivotal's OSS experience. It > shows they've done it, but it shows that the commitment is not indefinite > funding (to be fair, no single org can guarantee that). Spring is the one > to really emphasis. > > Companies are always free to re-evaluate where they spend their time > and resources. I actually view the experience with Groovy as a > positive thing in the macro sense. The point of submitting Geode to > the ASF is to ensure the longevity of the project and community - the > lesson from Groovy is to ensure it is in appropriate foundation that > will care for it. > > > 2. It will make it more of a barrier to getting other developers in; > it'll take active effort to bring them in, especially a transition to a > process of decision making over the lists, rather than in meetings. Again, > a perennial problem that we all encounter -not an argument against the > proposal, just something that will take active effort. > > This is why we have an Incubator. =) > > > I don't see it leaving incubation with more non-pivotal dev/contrib than > the pivotal team, just because of the numbers. The mentors/vote will have > to consider how many external developers constitutes "enough" to be an > active, open dev community. Again, a permanent problem (*), it just means > here that it will be very skewed towards pivotal. I think that open-source > discussion and decision making should be a key metric here, rather than > just looking at numbers. > > Fully agreed for exit criteria, but let's get it in first! -- justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.
