Does seem reasonable, I would like to know yuri's and ali's opinion on the matter as they have been the care takers of wave for some time in the daily sense. I willing to put in more work to build up the Apache Wave community and would greatly appreciate the help from the Apache committers (as I am not a Apache committer member).
Even though the project needs to be able to demonstrate this without your prodding, I'm sure it will go a long way in helping the project get back on track. On 8 October 2015 at 07:48, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > That is a reasonable response, Evan. > > So, let's look at what graduation might look like, then we can see about > what goals might be reasonable: > > A podling must have: > 1. proven its ability to produce legally correct releases > 2. demonstrated its ability to vote in new committers and PPMC members > 3. a diverse community > 4. sufficient PPMC members to be able to command 3 or more votes on all > important matters, > notably new committers/PPMC members and on releases. > > So, the ONE thing this podling needs to do before our next board report > is due is make a release. > > This involves these steps: > * prepare a tarball containing the source > * validate that it is (to the best of our knowledge) legally correct > * get at least 3 +1 votes from PPMC members > * submit it to the Incubator PMC for checking > > I personally am hesitant to vote on such things as I have limited > experience of release vetting. My holding back should not be considered > as a negative in any way. > > The PPMC needs to be able to demonstrate its ability to do this in a > self managed way, i.e. without prodding from mentors. > > Note, I don't mention in that list "getting the Incubator PMC to accept > the release". That can sometimes be challenging. But having shown that > this PPMC can (a) produce a release tarball and (b) submit it to the > Incubator PMC having acquired 3 or more +1 votes from PPMC members would > make a big difference in terms of moving us closer to meeting graduation > requirements. > > Reasonable? > > Upayavira > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015, at 02:01 PM, Evan Hughes wrote: > > maybe instead of deciding the end instead you and Christian set goals > > that > > must be completed by the next checkpoint aka have x amount of submits, > > have > > x more active contributors to help gain momentum. If the tasks are not > > completed sufficiently or dismally fail then sure maybe its for the best. > > > > On 7 October 2015 at 22:44, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Well as the video discussion we had earlier this year, the main problem > > > has been the complexity. We have been taking steps in this direction > with; > > > > > > * reducing technical debt (removing updating dependencies), can bee > seen > > > from patches last week and there has been work in a gradle or sbt build > > > system which allows people to understand how the project works > together. > > > > > > I personally have been looking into giving the website a fresh coat of > > > paint in the past couple of weeks (infrastructures docs on building > locally > > > are eh if not on a mac ;) but did get it working). We have also had the > > > addition of the android project for wave. > > > > > > Progress might be slow but progress is still being made. > > > > > > On 7 October 2015 at 20:54, Upayavira <upayav...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> I need to sign off the Wave report, but find this difficult. > > >> > > >> The Apache Incubator exists to facilitate projects moving towards > being > > >> fully fledged ASF projects. Wave has been > > >> incubating since 2010, and in that time it has not yet been able to > > >> build a community that is likely to sustain itself as an ASF > > >> project. > > >> > > >> It does, therefore, seem to me that it is time for us to retire as a > > >> podling, and allow people here to continue in a location more fitting > > >> with the current level of effort, without the expectation that it > needs > > >> to meet some specific set of incubation requirements. > > >> > > >> Note that all of the source code is Apache Licensed, meaning it can be > > >> forked elsewhere - the only discussion required is the name that the > > >> relocated project would take. > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > >> Upayavira > > >> > > > > > > >
