Hi Daniel
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
> Apologies in advance for slightly crossing threads here.
I'll try to keep you straight in replying to the parts that belong to
this thread ;-)
> But let's get some facts straight first:
> - The champion of the project created a DISCUSS thread prior to a potential
> vote. Not a VOTE thread, but a DISCUSS thread. This implies that a subject
> is to be reviewed and discussed.
> - During this discussion thread, concerns were raised by people outside of
> the IPMC.
So far so good.
> - Members of the IPMC looked into the concerns, as any governing body
> should, and while doing so, discovered other issues that were brought to the
> attention of the podling. These issues ranged from bad wording, which were
> unfortunately favorable to a specific company, to more procedural issues in
> maintaining transparency in development.
>
> - Some of these issues were fixed, some were debated/refuted, and some are
> 'pending' later review (chiefly cultural and procedural issues raised)
And here's where things get interesting. First of all, let me say that I'm
extremely grateful for *actionable* concerns that were expressed on
this thread. Things like sill cut-n-paste errors. I really do appreciate IPMC's
time spent of reviewing the proposed board resolution.
Then, there were concerns that are non-actionable (or at least poorly
specified) and then there were concerns that had nothing to do with
whether the podling is ready to be an *average* TLP.
Because you see, the proposed resolution that started this thread is NOT
about whether we all believe Ignite is going to be a poster child and a
role model for all the TLPs in the foundation, but rather whether we believe
it can self govern according to the broad principles of the "Apache Way".
IOW, in my view (a view of somebody who spent quite a few months
directly with this and other podlings) some of the concerns are OK to
address after the project becomes a TLP. There's always something
to be improved. IPMC voting on a podling becoming a TLP doesn't
somehow invalidate what you and other have uncovered it just believes
that the podling is mature enough to address feedback as a TLP. That's
what the vote is really all about.
So, long story short:
1. I believe all actionable concerns were take care of. Please correct
me if I am wrong here (by listing the actionable concerns that were NOT
taken care of).
2. Since I still don't seem to have anybody reply to my direct question:
http://s.apache.org/twy
I need to repeat this request here again: if anybody still has *actionable*
concerns on whether this podling can function as an *average* TLP please
reply with succinct bullet items.
I'm sorry but the rest of the replies belong to that other separate thread.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
