[PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator

[Niall Pemberton-2]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <niall.pemberton@...> wrote:
>
>> You're insinuating too much here. Simply put the commons PMC would
>> want to see committers in action before making them full blown Commons
>> committers. This is no different from any of the other incubations
>> that then graduate into an existing TLP. There are no boundaries
>> between components in Commons - all committers have svn access to all
>> components.
>
> Ok, I just deleted a long elaboration over the Open Participation
> Software for Java (www.ops4j.org) community experiment, but I don't
> think it would be appreciated. Instead, I say this;
>
> Letting everyone have write access to all Commons sub-projects, is not
> an ASF requirement. You may distinguish between the sandbox and the
> rest. And you may give people coming in with the code, commit rights
> to sandbox while observing and teaching them what Apache is all about.
> And you may have a unspoken rule of no releases from sandbox, as an
> incentive of people to sharpen up.

True. The same logic could also apply to any proposal that wants to
join an existing project rather than become a TLP though.

Niall

> Although I generally agree with Robert's sentiment, I don't think the
> Comcubator will lessen the burden on the Incubator PMC. Not
> necessarily by intent, but that there will be individuals who will
> want to help out, that are currently helping out on Incubator, thus
> thinning time for everything else.
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

> Well, the point is: we are  talking about small libraries.

That's code.  What about community, Torsten?  What is the Community?  It has
been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects.  Is that to
change?  We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right?  We
need to keep that as a single community managing libraries of common
components.

> what about the 2 developers? Just make them committers while they
> have no clue about Apache? Doesn't sound like a good idea.

Keep in mind that Committers in the Incubator are not provisional.  The
projects are, but not the people.  We can definitely talk about incubating a
project before it moves into Apache Commons, especially larger ones.

        --- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@...> wrote:
> > The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual podling" or
> > "mini-Incubator" overseeing the influx of components to be
> > adopted into Apache Commons.

> -1 (vote, not veto).

-1 from me, at least for now, for the same reasons:

> If Commons PMC wants to import code, then it can file IP clearances.
> If it wants to incubate communities, then it needs to follow the rest
> of the Incubator procedures.

That said, we want to work with Apache Commons to address its valid issues.
But the proposal appears to be a false step.

        --- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
to
> join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
> with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
committer.

Trust related to what?  Keep in mind that Committer != PMC member, which is
an important distinction (even if some think otherwise).  And the person
should be considered more trustworthy than most with respect to making
patches, given that they are the contributors of the code in the first
place.

They do need to do is become indoctrinated in the community, and if it is
just a committer or few at a time into an entire community, Apache Commons
ought to be able to handle that.

        --- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Torsten Curdt]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 04:34, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:
>> Well, the point is: we are  talking about small libraries.
>
> That's code.  What about community, Torsten?  What is the Community?  It has
> been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects.  Is that to
> change?  We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right?  We
> need to keep that as a single community managing libraries of common
> components.

Exactly! That's exactly why I think the Incubator does not work well
for small components. The Incubator is to build a community. But it
doesn't integrate into an existing one. Which would lead to an
umbrella which is NOT what we want. After all it's the whole Commons
that is the community.

So is it OK for commons to play mini Incubator with it's sandbox? I am
not sure I like this either.

Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
go through incubation or not. I guess what I am trying to say is that
there is something in the middle we need to find a procedure for. Be
it at Commons or at the Incubator. I don't care. It's just that
Commons is probably more likely to get these kind of contributions and
we need to find a procedure on how to deal with it. I think the idea
behind this thread was more to reach out to the Incubator experience
to find a proper way how to deal with such contributions.

I just don't like the "all project are equal" attitude I am reading
here - because they are not. Some projects are just too small to
warrant the target of a TLP or even a sub project ...which I always
thought is where Incubator projects exit to.

Teaching people "The Apache Way" after they got commit access sounds
as bad as forcing the original authors to keep sending patches until
we feel they are ready. I know some people from the Commons PMC
expressed similar thoughts, but this is really just my POV.

cheers
--
Torsten

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Torsten Curdt-2]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:15, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:
>> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
> to
>> join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain trust
>> with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
> committer.
>
> Trust related to what?

Trust in that they understand how Apache works.

> And the person
> should be considered more trustworthy than most with respect to making
> patches, given that they are the contributors of the code in the first
> place.

Well, they are also the person that could have potential code
ownership problems, could try to lead the project like they were used
to before and so on. I would not consider them more trustworthy in
that sense just because they brought the code.

> They do need to do is become indoctrinated in the community, and if it is
> just a committer or few at a time into an entire community, Apache Commons
> ought to be able to handle that.

So we just hand out commit access and hope (or try to make them)
behave? Isn't that a bit unfair to those that contributed over months
until they got voted in as committers? They had to show beforehand
they understand how things work.

cheers
--
Torsten

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:15, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

>> And the person
>> should be considered more trustworthy than most with respect to making
>> patches, given that they are the contributors of the code in the first
>> place.
>
> Well, they are also the person that could have potential code
> ownership problems, could try to lead the project like they were used
> to before and so on. I would not consider them more trustworthy in
> that sense just because they brought the code.

Well, how do you "trust" that a contribution arriving via JIRA is any
different? We can't, and probably shouldn't, go looking for problems
among the committers and contributors. Assumption that what people say
is true, is probably a healthy starting point.

>> They do need to do is become indoctrinated in the community, and if it is
>> just a committer or few at a time into an entire community, Apache Commons
>> ought to be able to handle that.
>
> So we just hand out commit access and hope (or try to make them)
> behave? Isn't that a bit unfair to those that contributed over months
> until they got voted in as committers? They had to show beforehand
> they understand how things work.

Well, now we enter a different discussion; "How much contribution is
required for commit rights?"
Something for your PMC to work out, and I can only lend out my own
little idea; If the effort of applying the patches is exceeding the
effort required to create commit account, then I think the account
should be created. Now, creating a committer at ASF is slightly
expensive, so a single patch is not enough but if the incoming
codebase is expecting heavy evolution, then I think it makes sense to
make committer immediately. If it is a mature codebase, then perhaps
not.


Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@...> wrote:

> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
> go through incubation or not.

That should be the case;
 1. IF there is a community --> Incubation.
 2. IF there is no community --> IP Clearance.

With 2-4 *active* people, I think a judgment call is proper.

Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Jim Jagielski]

On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Matt Benson wrote:

>
> Note: Resending due to my having neglected the [PROPOSAL] subject  
> line earlier.
>
> ==========================
>
> Commons Incubator Proposal
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> The Commons Incubator would act as a "perpetual podling" or "mini-
> Incubator" overseeing the influx of components to be adopted into  
> Apache Commons.
>
>
> BACKGROUND
>
> Apache Commons, a conglomerate of smallish Java libraries, lacks a  
> good procedure for importing preexisting codebases.
>
>

-1


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Torsten Curdt]

No harsh feelings but I give up. You do not hear what I am saying.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 14:32, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@...> wrote:
>
>> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
>> go through incubation or not.
>
> That should be the case;
>  1. IF there is a community --> Incubation.
>  2. IF there is no community --> IP Clearance.
>
> With 2-4 *active* people, I think a judgment call is proper.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Santiago Gala-4]

El lun, 13-04-2009 a las 18:29 +0200, Torsten Curdt escribió:
> No harsh feelings but I give up. You do not hear what I am saying.
>

I tend to agree with Niclas in this area, though the last exchanges you
had with Noel led me closer to understand the points we seem to be
missing. I guess we are using words in different ways, or else there is
some context missing.

The main thing I didn't took into account previously is the feeling that
it is harder to earn committership when coming from inside than when
donating some code.

Regards
Santiago

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 14:32, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
> >> go through incubation or not.
> >
> > That should be the case;
> >  1. IF there is a community --> Incubation.
> >  2. IF there is no community --> IP Clearance.
> >
> > With 2-4 *active* people, I think a judgment call is proper.
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
> >
> > I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> > I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Torsten Curdt wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > That's code.  What about community, Torsten?  What is the Community?  It
has
> > been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects.  Is that to
> > change?  We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella, right?
 We
> > need to keep that as a single community managing libraries of common
> > components.

> Exactly! That's exactly why I think the Incubator does not work well
> for small components. The Incubator is to build a community.

Exactly.  We agree.

> all it's the whole Commons that is the community.

We agree, again.  :-)

> So is it OK for commons to play mini Incubator with it's sandbox? I am
> not sure I like this either.

OK, why not?  Just asking.  You and I have having a civil discussion.  :-)

> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
> go through incubation or not. I guess what I am trying to say is that
> there is something in the middle we need to find a procedure for.

OK, why don't you lay out some parameters?

FWIW, *ALL* new code coming into the ASF does go through the Incubator, but
that is because we are the repository for IP clearance; the actual clearance
is done by the PMC clearing it.

> Be it at Commons or at the Incubator. I don't care. It's just that
> Commons is probably more likely to get these kind of contributions and
> we need to find a procedure on how to deal with it. I think the idea
> behind this thread was more to reach out to the Incubator experience
> to find a proper way how to deal with such contributions.

We have provisional communities, but not committers.  How is it different if
a new project comes into the Incubator and they have commit access to that,
versus it goes into Commons Sandbox, and they are granted karma for it
there?  Is it just a matter of access control?  Is that what this boils down
to in the end?

> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
> or even a sub project

We agree!  We have several projects here that I believe belong in Commons!

> Teaching people "The Apache Way" after they got commit access sounds
> as bad as forcing the original authors to keep sending patches

Torsten, my point is that when they land here, they do get commit access,
and then they learn the ASF away.  So, again, is this just about access
control to delineate what they can do?


-----

>>> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a committer means
>>> to join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community, gain
>>> trust with the project members and then after a while be voted in as a
>>> committer.
>> Trust related to what?
> Trust in that they understand how Apache works.

We don't expect them to know that here, and we make them an ASF Committer
first.

> [The new Committer might] also the person that could have potential code
> ownership problems, could try to lead the project like they were used
> to before and so on. I would not consider them more trustworthy in
> that sense just because they brought the code.

OK, perhaps we're getting somewhere ...

Torsten, are you asking that we setup something like Incubator Commons
Sandbox into which code goes, we make them Committers, the Mentors (likely
from Commons) work with them here, then when you are satisfied that they get
it, you (upon vote of the PMCs) svn move the code from Incubator Commons
Sandbox to Commons Sandbox?  Is this the idea?

> > They do need to do is become indoctrinated in the community, and if it
is
> > just a committer or few at a time into an entire community, Apache
Commons
> > ought to be able to handle that.

> So we just hand out commit access and hope (or try to make them)
> behave?

LOL Well, that *is* what we do here, isn't it?  That part is just access
control.

        --- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Craig L Russell]

On Apr 13, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> That's code.  What about community, Torsten?  What is the  
>>> Community?  It
> has
>>> been the Apache Commons as a collective, not sub-projects.  Is  
>>> that to
>>> change?  We do not want Apache Commons to turn into an umbrella,  
>>> right?
>  We
>>> need to keep that as a single community managing libraries of common
>>> components.
>
>> Exactly! That's exactly why I think the Incubator does not work well
>> for small components. The Incubator is to build a community.
>
> Exactly.  We agree.
>
>> all it's the whole Commons that is the community.
>
> We agree, again.  :-)
>
>> So is it OK for commons to play mini Incubator with it's sandbox? I  
>> am
>> not sure I like this either.
>
> OK, why not?  Just asking.  You and I have having a civil  
> discussion.  :-)
>
>> Too often had the discussion at Commons whether this library needs to
>> go through incubation or not. I guess what I am trying to say is that
>> there is something in the middle we need to find a procedure for.
>
> OK, why don't you lay out some parameters?
>
> FWIW, *ALL* new code coming into the ASF does go through the  
> Incubator, but
> that is because we are the repository for IP clearance; the actual  
> clearance
> is done by the PMC clearing it.
>
>> Be it at Commons or at the Incubator. I don't care. It's just that
>> Commons is probably more likely to get these kind of contributions  
>> and
>> we need to find a procedure on how to deal with it. I think the idea
>> behind this thread was more to reach out to the Incubator experience
>> to find a proper way how to deal with such contributions.
>
> We have provisional communities, but not committers.  How is it  
> different if
> a new project comes into the Incubator and they have commit access  
> to that,
> versus it goes into Commons Sandbox, and they are granted karma for it
> there?  Is it just a matter of access control?  Is that what this  
> boils down
> to in the end?
>
>> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
>> or even a sub project
>
> We agree!  We have several projects here that I believe belong in  
> Commons!

For example, we have a great little project called Sanselan that is  
"code complete" but has not attracted a big enough community to become  
a TLP. Commons could be just the place for it.

The alternatives for Sanselan are indefinite incubation, expulsion  
from Apache or incorporation into another TLP.

Craig

>
>
>> Teaching people "The Apache Way" after they got commit access sounds
>> as bad as forcing the original authors to keep sending patches
>
> Torsten, my point is that when they land here, they do get commit  
> access,
> and then they learn the ASF away.  So, again, is this just about  
> access
> control to delineate what they can do?
>
>
> -----
>
>>>> My view, and I believe Torstens view is that to become a  
>>>> committer means
>>>> to join the dev lists, send in patches, be part of the community,  
>>>> gain
>>>> trust with the project members and then after a while be voted in  
>>>> as a
>>>> committer.
>>> Trust related to what?
>> Trust in that they understand how Apache works.
>
> We don't expect them to know that here, and we make them an ASF  
> Committer
> first.
>
>> [The new Committer might] also the person that could have potential  
>> code
>> ownership problems, could try to lead the project like they were used
>> to before and so on. I would not consider them more trustworthy in
>> that sense just because they brought the code.
>
> OK, perhaps we're getting somewhere ...
>
> Torsten, are you asking that we setup something like Incubator Commons
> Sandbox into which code goes, we make them Committers, the Mentors  
> (likely
> from Commons) work with them here, then when you are satisfied that  
> they get
> it, you (upon vote of the PMCs) svn move the code from Incubator  
> Commons
> Sandbox to Commons Sandbox?  Is this the idea?
>
>>> They do need to do is become indoctrinated in the community, and  
>>> if it
> is
>>> just a committer or few at a time into an entire community, Apache
> Commons
>>> ought to be able to handle that.
>
>> So we just hand out commit access and hope (or try to make them)
>> behave?
>
> LOL Well, that *is* what we do here, isn't it?  That part is just  
> access
> control.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@...
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Craig Russell wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
>>> or even a sub project
>> We agree!  We have several projects here that I believe belong in
>> Commons!
> For example, we have a great little project called Sanselan that is
> "code complete" but has not attracted a big enough community to become
> a TLP. Commons could be just the place for it.

Sanselan was top of my list when I made my comment.  :-)  If Apache
Commons and Sanselan are interested, that's an avenue I'd like to see
pursued.

        --- Noel

[Jochen Wiedmann]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

>> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
>> or even a sub project
>
> We agree!  We have several projects here that I believe belong in Commons!

May be. But please consider the following:

- Commons won't be able to catch them all. More precisely: If you dilute the
  commons community too much, then you'll just make it another umbrella
  project. It already *is* big, with so many components.
- Having commons as the target doesn't imply the necessity of a special
  commons@incubator or whatever subproject.
  A very reasonable alternative might be that the Incubator decides "Ok, this
  project did its housework and could leave the Incubator, apart from
  community issues. Why not offer it to some project as a subproject?"
  And this project *could* include Commons.

  I am aware that this would likely need to change the Incubator policy in
  advance, but to me it makes much more sense than throwing everything
  at Commons.


Jochen



--
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
how to use my telephone.

    -- (Bjarne Stroustrup,
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that
       My guess: Nokia E50)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

2009/4/14 Noel J. Bergman <noel@...>:

> Craig Russell wrote:
>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> > Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>> Some projects are just too small to warrant the target of a TLP
>>>> or even a sub project
>>> We agree!  We have several projects here that I believe belong in
>>> Commons!
>> For example, we have a great little project called Sanselan that is
>> "code complete" but has not attracted a big enough community to become
>> a TLP. Commons could be just the place for it.
>
> Sanselan was top of my list when I made my comment.  :-)  If Apache
> Commons and Sanselan are interested, that's an avenue I'd like to see
> pursued....

To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
vote of the Incubator and in particular of the project's mentors.

Sounds like a plan to me: accept smallish projects into the incubator,
but give them the option to graduate to Commons instead of becoming a
full-blown project, if their community does not grow enough.

And projects too small for this should go directly to Commons,
starting with grants/patches which help their authors become
committers.

-Bertrand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jochen.wiedmann@...> wrote:

>  A very reasonable alternative might be that the Incubator decides "Ok, this
>  project did its housework and could leave the Incubator, apart from
>  community issues. Why not offer it to some project as a subproject?"
>  And this project *could* include Commons.
>
>  I am aware that this would likely need to change the Incubator policy in
>  advance, but to me it makes much more sense than throwing everything
>  at Commons.

There are example of this; FtpServer was too small (1) to attract
critical mass while in Incubator. I (as Mentor) tried to be
'inventive' and asked if MINA folks would be interested, which they
were, and a couple of MINA PMC members were added into the FtpServer
to fulfill the community requirement. Should it have been enough for
Mina PMC to say ; "Yes, we will take charge of it."? I think so. After
the fact, I think this particular case has been very successful and
additional committer(s) with interest in the FtpServer has since been
added.

I think this shows a concrete case of a relatively small code which
fits into a TLP, and the Incubator PMC should try to place these
accordingly. Commons should not be a dumping place...


Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacretaz@...> wrote:

> To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
> Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
> vote of the Incubator and in particular of the project's mentors.
>
> Sounds like a plan to me: accept smallish projects into the incubator,
> but give them the option to graduate to Commons instead of becoming a
> full-blown project, if their community does not grow enough.
>
> And projects too small for this should go directly to Commons,
> starting with grants/patches which help their authors become
> committers.

+1. Sounds good to me.


Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[sebb-2-2]

On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  <bdelacretaz@...> wrote:
>
>  > To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
>  > Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
>  > vote of the Incubator and in particular of the project's mentors.
>  >
>  > Sounds like a plan to me: accept smallish projects into the incubator,
>  > but give them the option to graduate to Commons instead of becoming a
>  > full-blown project, if their community does not grow enough.
>  >
>  > And projects too small for this should go directly to Commons,
>  > starting with grants/patches which help their authors become
>  > committers.
>
>
> +1. Sounds good to me.
>

+1, provided that the project fits in with Commons goal(s).

-1, if Commons is just used as a dumping ground for small projects.

>
>  Cheers
>  --
>  Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>  http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
>  I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
>  I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
>  I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>  For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Santiago Gala-4]

El mar, 14-04-2009 a las 10:28 +0100, sebb escribió:

> On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@...> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >  <bdelacretaz@...> wrote:
> >
> >  > To clarify: do you mean Sanselan could "graduate" into Commons?
> >  > Commons adopts the Sanselan codebase and active committers, upon a
> >  > vote of the Incubator and in particular of the project's mentors.
> >  >
> >  > Sounds like a plan to me: accept smallish projects into the incubator,
> >  > but give them the option to graduate to Commons instead of becoming a
> >  > full-blown project, if their community does not grow enough.
> >  >
> >  > And projects too small for this should go directly to Commons,
> >  > starting with grants/patches which help their authors become
> >  > committers.
> >
> >
> > +1. Sounds good to me.
> >
>
> +1, provided that the project fits in with Commons goal(s).
>
> -1, if Commons is just used as a dumping ground for small projects.
>

Fully agreed. In this whole discussion I have worked under the
assumption that we were speaking about "commons" projects, i.e. tools,
modules or libraries generic enough to warrant being in Commons.

Regards
Santiago

> >
> >  Cheers
> >  --
> >  Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> >  http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
> >
> >  I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> >  I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> >  I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
> >
> >  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...