[PROPOSAL] Commons Incubator

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:28 AM, sebb <sebbaz@...> wrote:

> 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.

Agreed, I didn't mean to imply that Commons *has* to accept such
projects, it's Commons' call.

-Bertrand

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

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Generic thread, keeping the Sanselan discussion focused in its own thread.

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> 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.
> Commons should not be a dumping place...

I believe that there is widespread agreement with you that Commons should
not be a dumping ground.  We are only taking about Commons being a
destination when there is a fit and desire to take on the component.  And it
is not the only such place, as I will raise, below.

>> - Having commons as the target doesn't imply the necessity of a special
>>   commons@incubator or whatever subproject.

Separate discussion.

>>  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.

Again, we need to be careful not to make any project a dumping ground, but
we can and should take a positive look at: "Do we have an existing project
where this too small to survive on its own community can, and is mutually
willing to, properly merge?"

>> I am aware that this would likely need to change the Incubator policy in
>> advance

I don't see why it is any sort of policy change.  As Niclas has also noted:

> 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 [it eventually became part of MINA]

Likewise, Yoko was graduated in parts into other TLPs.

        --- Noel



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

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

I knew that I should have renamed the thread when I replied ... :-\  Sorry.  I'll try to pull it all together here ...

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:28 AM, sebb <sebbaz@...> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2009, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@...> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>>  <bdelacretaz@...> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> +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.
> Agreed, I didn't mean to imply that Commons *has* to accept such
> projects, it's Commons' call.

Exactly.  I abosolutely share the concern.  Commons should NOT be used as any form of dumping ground.  Commons has to make a well considered and deliberate decision if it wants to accept responsibility in each individual case of a reusable library component.  That is the very thin line that Commons is walking: a single Community taking joint responsibility for a large set of disjoint libraries, where few if any would be maintainable outside of the Commons gestalt.

Let's leave THIS thread specifically about Sanselan.  I'll start another one about more generic matters.

        --- Noel



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

[cziegeler]

Seems like perfect timing :)

We just discussed our options last week in the Sanselan project. As
Craig already summarized this, Sanselan has these options: graduate into
commons (incubator), indefinite incubation, expulsion from Apache or
incorporation into another TLP. Of course in theory it could become a
TLP by itself, but I don't think that this will ever happen :)
Expulsion or indefinite incubation are bad options as well and we don't
see any other TLP than commons fit for the purpose of Sanselan.

So, by crossing out all other options :) graduating to commons incubator
seems like a good way forward.

Carsten


--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@...

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

[Matt Benson]

Two comments:

(1) A Commons Incubator in the form put forth in the incubation proposal of the same name does not seem likely to happen, given the feedback on this list so far.

(2) If Commons would accept Sanselan, it having already been through the incubator would graduate as a proper, or possibly sandbox* component, AFAIK, so the Commons Incubator concept would be irrelevant here.  :)

* I'm just throwing ideas around, but the Commons PMC could theoretically decide to accept a graduating component into the sandbox if for example there were just not enough developers (3) available for immediate care and feeding of the prospective graduate podling.

Regards,
Matt

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@...> wrote:

> From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@...>
> Subject: Re: PROPOSAL to graduate Sanselan into Commons Incubator
> To: general@...
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 8:54 AM
> Seems like perfect timing :)
>
> We just discussed our options last week in the Sanselan
> project. As
> Craig already summarized this, Sanselan has these options:
> graduate into
> commons (incubator), indefinite incubation, expulsion from
> Apache or
> incorporation into another TLP. Of course in theory it
> could become a
> TLP by itself, but I don't think that this will ever happen
> :)
> Expulsion or indefinite incubation are bad options as well
> and we don't
> see any other TLP than commons fit for the purpose of
> Sanselan.
>
> So, by crossing out all other options :) graduating to
> commons incubator
> seems like a good way forward.
>
> Carsten
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[sebb-2-2]

On 15/04/2009, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@...> wrote:
>
>  Two comments:
>
>  (1) A Commons Incubator in the form put forth in the incubation proposal of the same name does not seem likely to happen, given the feedback on this list so far.
>
>  (2) If Commons would accept Sanselan, it having already been through the incubator would graduate as a proper, or possibly sandbox* component, AFAIK, so the Commons Incubator concept would be irrelevant here.  :)
>
>  * I'm just throwing ideas around, but the Commons PMC could theoretically decide to accept a graduating component into the sandbox if for example there were just not enough developers (3) available for immediate care and feeding of the prospective graduate podling.
>

+1, well put.

>  Regards,
>  Matt
>
>  --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@...> wrote:
>
>  > From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@...>
>  > Subject: Re: PROPOSAL to graduate Sanselan into Commons Incubator
>  > To: general@...
>  > Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 8:54 AM
>
> > Seems like perfect timing :)
>  >
>  > We just discussed our options last week in the Sanselan
>  > project. As
>  > Craig already summarized this, Sanselan has these options:
>  > graduate into
>  > commons (incubator), indefinite incubation, expulsion from
>  > Apache or
>  > incorporation into another TLP. Of course in theory it
>  > could become a
>  > TLP by itself, but I don't think that this will ever happen
>  > :)
>  > Expulsion or indefinite incubation are bad options as well
>  > and we don't
>  > see any other TLP than commons fit for the purpose of
>  > Sanselan.
>  >
>  > So, by crossing out all other options :) graduating to
>  > commons incubator
>  > seems like a good way forward.
>  >
>  > Carsten
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Carsten Ziegeler
>  > cziegeler@...
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > 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@...

[Niall Pemberton-2]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@...> wrote:

> Seems like perfect timing :)
>
> We just discussed our options last week in the Sanselan project. As
> Craig already summarized this, Sanselan has these options: graduate into
> commons (incubator), indefinite incubation, expulsion from Apache or
> incorporation into another TLP. Of course in theory it could become a
> TLP by itself, but I don't think that this will ever happen :)
> Expulsion or indefinite incubation are bad options as well and we don't
> see any other TLP than commons fit for the purpose of Sanselan.
>
> So, by crossing out all other options :) graduating to commons incubator
> seems like a good way forward.

From a quick glance at the commits list[1] seems that Sanselan only
really has one committer which could be problematic in getting it
accepted as a "proper" component. Graduating to Commons Sandbox may
not be that appealing since unlike incubator we don't permit releases
from the Sandbox. Anyway I would suggest the next step is to see
whether Commons would accept Sanselan or not.

Niall

[1] http://markmail.org/search/list:org.apache.incubator.sanselan-commits


> Carsten

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

[robert burrell donkin-2]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:
> Generic thread, keeping the Sanselan discussion focused in its own thread.
>
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:

<snip>

>>>  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.
>
> Again, we need to be careful not to make any project a dumping ground, but
> we can and should take a positive look at: "Do we have an existing project
> where this too small to survive on its own community can, and is mutually
> willing to, properly merge?"

+1

- robert

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