On Nov 13, 2015 4:50 PM, "Branko Čibej" <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 10.11.2015 16:00, Pierre Smits wrote: > > That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software > > Foundation with the input from many (both ASF members and others) and > > hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are not > > Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of a fellow board member.... > > > > That doesn't help mitigating the confusion building. > > The document is not a Foundation standard. ComDev is no closer to being > "the ASF" than, say, Bloodhound PMC. > > Whilst I do find this attempt at a maturity model an interesting > experiment, I'm really, really uncomfortable with people pushing it as > some sort of golden standard for podlings (and, worse, TLPs). It's a > completely informal paper, yet I've already seen people cast doubts on > podling graduation with the excuse that some criterion of the model > wasn't met.
That's because the document codifies what I consider criteria for graduation, not because I somehow think that the document itself is holy. Ie, the document reflects me, not vice versa. > > That kind of argument is totally out of line. The IPMC may decide to use > the model as a metric for podling compliance and so integrate it into > the Incubator policy[1]. Unless and until that happens, any attempt to > measure podlings against that bit of paper (other than for purely > recreational purposes) is rude at best. No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is, and accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above. It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time. They are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular one of them.
