I’ll get right on creating one for Unomi, I’ve been wanting to use this since
you first told me about it Bertrand :)
cheers,
Serge…
> On 19 nov. 2015, at 20:33, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> FYI I have started an e
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> FYI I have started an experiment at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/MATURITY.adoc ,
> using our maturity model to evaluate Groovy...
Groovy graduated now and doesn't have a good place to keep that
document
dows Phone
From: Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>
Sent: 10/19/2015 1:15 AM
To: Incubator General<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its
graduation
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Em
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> ...that might just be me...
I agree that each of our projects regularly evaluating their state
against the maturity model would be useful. We can either make that a
requirement (like once a year as part of the board reporting) or make
th
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...In particular, this document isn't a "metric", is is more of a
> checklist...
Yeah that was part of the maturity model's design [1]: avoid the
levels of compliance that many such models have, but rather make it
modular and granular.
I'm glad
Le 18/10/15 10:48, Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
> -1 on requiring all projects to do this exercise. It is not policy,
> and frankly as a volunteer organization we can let the communities
> themselves determine whether this is something they want to spend
> their time on.
Well, I unerstand your conce
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Just looked over Bertrand's document and I must say while I had high
> expectations Bertrand has managed to surpass them. That this is a
> functional and itemized list of details is just perfect- even better that
> there are citations and ref
-1 on requiring all projects to do this exercise. It is not policy,
and frankly as a volunteer organization we can let the communities
themselves determine whether this is something they want to spend
their time on.
I thought we were a community for/over code, not a bureaucracy for/over code.
If/
Just looked over Bertrand's document and I must say while I had high
expectations Bertrand has managed to surpass them. That this is a
functional and itemized list of details is just perfect- even better that
there are citations and references along with it!
Excellent job Bertrand!
On Sat, Oct 1
I concur, and similarly pushed back just a few days ago on another
suggestion of such "policy".
Not really sure that an ASF-wide metric is appropriate (ie. all communities
are different, and freedom to set their own path is important), but there
is definitely value in some in the model. It can wit
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Filip Hanik wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Emmanuel Lécharny
> wrote:
> > Le 15/10/15 13:17, Rich Bowen a écrit :
>
>...
> > > Who
> > > evaluates the results?
> >
> > Either the board, or a group gathered for that purpose.
>
> the board? doesn't that b
I thought I'd comment from Groovy's point of view, being on the
"receiving" end of the audit.
I felt that the structure the audit provided to discussions about "Are
we there yet?" was very valuable. It didn't feel to me like the audit
was imposing any new requirement or policy that I hadn't heard
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/15/2015 08:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If we are to use the maturity model as the guideline regarding podling
>> graduation, then certainly the model should be voted on and approved
>> by the membership as *the* model for the A
Le 15/10/15 16:28, Filip Hanik a écrit :
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Emmanuel Lécharny
> wrote:
>
>> Le 15/10/15 13:17, Rich Bowen a écrit :
>>> A huge +1, but I wonder about a few things. Who does the work?
>> I guess that each PMC should be responsible for this work, with a dead
>> line sof
On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> Le 15/10/15 13:17, Rich Bowen a écrit :
> > A huge +1, but I wonder about a few things. Who does the work?
>
> I guess that each PMC should be responsible for this work, with a dead
> line soft enough that it allows each check to be done w
On 10/15/2015 08:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are to use the maturity model as the guideline regarding podling
graduation, then certainly the model should be voted on and approved
by the membership as *the* model for the ASF, right?
Basically, it looks to me that the model is proposing an
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Stephen Mallette wrote:
> ...As someone who is going through incubation right now, I think I would have
> liked to have been looking at the maturity model from day 1 of incubation...
Yes, that would be nice IMO.
As that's quite a new tool we are still experi
As someone who is going through incubation right now, I think I would have
liked to have been looking at the maturity model from day 1 of incubation.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > ...If we are to use the m
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...If we are to use the maturity model as the guideline regarding podling
> graduation, then certainly the model should be voted on and approved
> by the membership as *the* model for the ASF, right?...
That would be good yes. In the meantim
If we are to use the maturity model as the guideline regarding podling
graduation, then certainly the model should be voted on and approved
by the membership as *the* model for the ASF, right?
Basically, it looks to me that the model is proposing and creating policy,
and this is something that nee
Le 15/10/15 13:49, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
> wrote:
>> ...I do think
>> that an audit of all the existing TLP should be done in the next month
>> to check if all the iterms are correctly fullfiled
> That would be interesting but that
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> ...I do think
> that an audit of all the existing TLP should be done in the next month
> to check if all the iterms are correctly fullfiled
That would be interesting but that's 167 TLPs if my memory is
correct...that's a a lot of wo
Le 15/10/15 13:17, Rich Bowen a écrit :
> A huge +1, but I wonder about a few things. Who does the work?
I guess that each PMC should be responsible for this work, with a dead
line soft enough that it allows each check to be done with no stress,
and under the supervision of some members in charge
A huge +1, but I wonder about a few things. Who does the work? Who
evaluates the results? What happens when projects "fail"?
Le 15/10/15 11:46, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> Hi Incubator PMC,
>
> FYI I have started an experiment at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/MATURITY
Le 15/10/15 11:46, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> Hi Incubator PMC,
>
> FYI I have started an experiment at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/MATURITY.adoc ,
> using our maturity model to evaluate Groovy before its mentors suggest
> its graduation (which should happen very s
25 matches
Mail list logo
