It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected during initial champion counseling or during discussion.
If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care, this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however. As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the outcome is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings > getting > >> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?.. > > > > I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say > > no earlier. > > > >> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?... > > > > Definitely. > > > >> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?... > > > > Off the top of my head I'd say: > > 1) Not enough experienced mentors > > 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high > > 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a > community > > 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started > > 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the > > project will never graduate > > > > We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not > > absolute, there can be interesting exceptions. > > 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2 > for example. > 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
