Board will be proposing a new TLP

[Jim Jagielski]

For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation
of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as
the project behind our STV and voting tools.

The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack
people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked
the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not
provide as releasable code to the world at large.

Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to
recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with
the creation of this project at the next board meeting.

Thx.

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

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> or not Incubation is even required...
Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV
code *knows* about the Apache Way...

Or is this simple non-sense ?

My +1 to the TLP without going through incubation...


--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com


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

[Alex Karasulu]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@...> wrote:

> Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>>
>> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
>> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
>> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
>> or not Incubation is even required...
>
> Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV code
> *knows* about the Apache Way...
>
> Or is this simple non-sense ?

No I don't think this is non-sense. However note that as Jim pointed
out, the difference here, that would favor the direct TLP route, is
the fact that everyone working on the voting tool are already Apache
Committers and Members. Conceivably they already know the "Apache
Way". Then again a quick incubation process might help get an extra
sanity check from the Incubator.

Your point makes sense considering outside participants to build a
larger community around the tool. Incubation might be a good
environment for a mass influx of "new to Apache", interested parties
to participate. But it does not sound like they're going to be
directly involved, knocking on our doors immediately. Also there's no
IP to vet. I presume this is more a matter of making the software an
official Apache Product with PMC endorsed releases that other
organizations like OpenStack can use immediately.

+1 Setup TLP without incubation, yet I can understand arguments for a
quick incubation.

--
Best Regards,
-- Alex

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

[dims]

+1 straight to TLP

-- dims


On Jun 30, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@...> wrote:

> For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation
> of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as
> the project behind our STV and voting tools.
>
> The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack
> people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked
> the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not
> provide as releasable code to the world at large.
>
> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to
> recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with
> the creation of this project at the next board meeting.
>
> Thx.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Mohammad Nour El-Din]

+1 on the proposal itself and how it will go directly through the board

I also agree /w what has been said and replied to by both Emmanuel & Alex
On Jun 30, 2012 3:32 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@...>
> wrote:
> > Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
> >>
> >> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> >> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> >> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> >> or not Incubation is even required...
> >
> > Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV
> code
> > *knows* about the Apache Way...
> >
> > Or is this simple non-sense ?
>
> No I don't think this is non-sense. However note that as Jim pointed
> out, the difference here, that would favor the direct TLP route, is
> the fact that everyone working on the voting tool are already Apache
> Committers and Members. Conceivably they already know the "Apache
> Way". Then again a quick incubation process might help get an extra
> sanity check from the Incubator.
>
> Your point makes sense considering outside participants to build a
> larger community around the tool. Incubation might be a good
> environment for a mass influx of "new to Apache", interested parties
> to participate. But it does not sound like they're going to be
> directly involved, knocking on our doors immediately. Also there's no
> IP to vet. I presume this is more a matter of making the software an
> official Apache Product with PMC endorsed releases that other
> organizations like OpenStack can use immediately.
>
> +1 Setup TLP without incubation, yet I can understand arguments for a
> quick incubation.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@...> wrote:
> For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation
> of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as
> the project behind our STV and voting tools.

+1 to proceed directly to steve.apache.org.

Incubation is only one possible approach among many to fostering a
healthy project which is likely to succeed as a TLP.

Marvin Humphrey

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

[Franklin, Matthew B.]

+1 for straight to TLP given the individuals and code provenance.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@...]
>Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:24 AM
>To: general@...
>Subject: Board will be proposing a new TLP
>
>For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation
>of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as
>the project behind our STV and voting tools.
>
>The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack
>people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked
>the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not
>provide as releasable code to the world at large.
>
>Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
>is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
>explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
>or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to
>recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with
>the creation of this project at the next board meeting.
>
>Thx.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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@...

[struberg]

Another question: for which case do you like to use the voting tool?

Imo this makes only sense for invite votes. And even for those it's sometimes important to be able to cast additional notes.


For technical votes it is de facto always the case that I like to see if people like it straight away, or if they have additional ideas.

Otherwise +1 for a voting project as TLP.

I'd be more in favour to go through incubation though. And if it's only to increase visibility and to show people that we treat each project equally.
Such a project could surely graduate within a few months.


LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----

> From: Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@...>
> To: general@...
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@...>
> wrote:
>>  Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>>>
>>>  Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
>>>  is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
>>>  explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
>>>  or not Incubation is even required...
>>
>>  Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV code
>>  *knows* about the Apache Way...
>>
>>  Or is this simple non-sense ?
>
> No I don't think this is non-sense. However note that as Jim pointed
> out, the difference here, that would favor the direct TLP route, is
> the fact that everyone working on the voting tool are already Apache
> Committers and Members. Conceivably they already know the "Apache
> Way". Then again a quick incubation process might help get an extra
> sanity check from the Incubator.
>
> Your point makes sense considering outside participants to build a
> larger community around the tool. Incubation might be a good
> environment for a mass influx of "new to Apache", interested parties
> to participate. But it does not sound like they're going to be
> directly involved, knocking on our doors immediately. Also there's no
> IP to vet. I presume this is more a matter of making the software an
> official Apache Product with PMC endorsed releases that other
> organizations like OpenStack can use immediately.
>
> +1 Setup TLP without incubation, yet I can understand arguments for a
> quick incubation.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Ross Gardler-5]

On Jun 30, 2012 9:34 PM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg@...> wrote:
>
> Another question: for which case do you like to use the voting tool?

The idea is not to make it more widely used inside the ASF (we all have
access to it and know where it is already). The idea is to make it more
visible and accessible to external users.

Ross

>
> Imo this makes only sense for invite votes. And even for those it's
sometimes important to be able to cast additional notes.
>
>
> For technical votes it is de facto always the case that I like to see if
people like it straight away, or if they have additional ideas.
>
> Otherwise +1 for a voting project as TLP.
>
> I'd be more in favour to go through incubation though. And if it's only
to increase visibility and to show people that we treat each project
equally.

> Such a project could surely graduate within a few months.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@...>
> > To: general@...
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@...>
> > wrote:
> >>  Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>  Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> >>>  is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> >>>  explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> >>>  or not Incubation is even required...
> >>
> >>  Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being

STV code

> >>  *knows* about the Apache Way...
> >>
> >>  Or is this simple non-sense ?
> >
> > No I don't think this is non-sense. However note that as Jim pointed
> > out, the difference here, that would favor the direct TLP route, is
> > the fact that everyone working on the voting tool are already Apache
> > Committers and Members. Conceivably they already know the "Apache
> > Way". Then again a quick incubation process might help get an extra
> > sanity check from the Incubator.
> >
> > Your point makes sense considering outside participants to build a
> > larger community around the tool. Incubation might be a good
> > environment for a mass influx of "new to Apache", interested parties
> > to participate. But it does not sound like they're going to be
> > directly involved, knocking on our doors immediately. Also there's no
> > IP to vet. I presume this is more a matter of making the software an
> > official Apache Product with PMC endorsed releases that other
> > organizations like OpenStack can use immediately.
> >
> > +1 Setup TLP without incubation, yet I can understand arguments for a
> > quick incubation.
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > -- Alex
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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@...
>

[struberg]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@...>
> To: Mark Struberg <struberg@...>; general <general@...>
>>  Another question: for which case do you like to use the voting tool?
>
> The idea is not to make it more widely used inside the ASF (we all have
> access to it and know where it is already). The idea is to make it more
> visible and accessible to external users.

Ok, that's a very valid point. Thanks for clarifying!


+0.7 for direct TLP (without incubation)
+1.0 for TLP (with incubation)

LieGrue,
strub


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

[Christian grobmeier]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@...> wrote:
> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to
> recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with
> the creation of this project at the next board meeting.

Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive
this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set
of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP?

If there is no community it should go through incubation: the
incubator is also about community building. In addition i think the
incubator is a good way to initially set up resources. Also you reach
other projects: the incubator ml are read by lots of people around
apache, maybe you get some more committers from there.

That all being said, as the code was developed from ASF people under
the license and on ASF repositories, I have no problem with giving a
+1 for direct tlp creation.

Cheers
Christian

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

[Tim Williams]

Incubation is unnecessary process in this case.  I don't see any reason
this should go through incubation.

--tim

On Saturday, June 30, 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation
> of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as
> the project behind our STV and voting tools.
>
> The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack
> people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked
> the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not
> provide as releasable code to the world at large.
>
> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to
> recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with
> the creation of this project at the next board meeting.
>
> Thx.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...<javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...<javascript:;>
>
>

[Jukka Zitting]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@...> wrote:
> Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive
> this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set
> of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP?

The svn log of the voter tool shows consistent contributions from all
the proposed PMC members except Chris.

The commit counts for the first six months of this year are:

     11  gstein
      8  jim
      4  rubys

Same names show up also in previous years along with others.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

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

[Mattmann, Chris A (398J)]

Hi Jukka,

On Jul 1, 2012, at 5:20 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@...> wrote:
>> Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive
>> this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set
>> of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP?
>
> The svn log of the voter tool shows consistent contributions from all
> the proposed PMC members except Chris.

Yep, I haven't contributed any code yet. I've used the tool though
(and became interested in it after the board elections).

That being said, I'm planning to be around, not go anywhere, help
VOTE on releases, test them out, and if I get the time/interest,
contribute to the code base.

I'd say that qualifies me just as much as if I'd had 50+ SVN commits
to it. Code != the only contribution.

My interest in being part of this project is that we at the ASF should
be able to release our voter tool code and share it with others who
are asking for it. I haven't directly developed any of the code, but I
also kind of see myself in this role as a 3rd binding VOTE when needed
and someone with the cycles/interest to make sure we push forward,
are operating in the Apache way, and are releasing the software
for the benefit of others.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@...
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


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

[Alan Cabrera]

On Jun 30, 2012, at 5:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation
> of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as
> the project behind our STV and voting tools.
>
> The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack
> people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked
> the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not
> provide as releasable code to the world at large.
>
> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to
> recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with
> the creation of this project at the next board meeting.

While I agree that it does not make sense to vet the initial set of project members and I'm sure that the code provenance is clean, I had always thought that a big part of the incubation process was to make sure that there's a vibrant community behind it.  I feel that I as a mentor I am placed in an awkward place as I put pressure on those podlings that do not have much community activity and now a bunch of board members expedite their project to a TLP.

I hope that someone can help me understand the current thinking about the vibrant community aspect that seems to be a requirement for incubation/TLP admission.

With that said, I am against accelerating this project directly into a TLP.


Regards,
Alan

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

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1 to go directly as a TLP.

Regards
JB

On 06/30/2012 02:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation
> of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as
> the project behind our STV and voting tools.
>
> The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack
> people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked
> the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not
> provide as releasable code to the world at large.
>
> Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and
> is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or
> explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether
> or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to
> recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with
> the creation of this project at the next board meeting.
>
> Thx.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@...
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com



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

[Christian grobmeier]

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@...> wrote:

>> Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive
>> this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set
>> of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP?
>
> The svn log of the voter tool shows consistent contributions from all
> the proposed PMC members except Chris.
>
> The commit counts for the first six months of this year are:
>
>      11  gstein
>       8  jim
>       4  rubys
>
> Same names show up also in previous years along with others.

Thanks Jukka.

The mentioned people know what they do. No problem with direct TLD creation.

Thanks Jim for giving a pre warning; not that it would have been
necessary, but it is always good to see what is going on. In addition
I think it was a good signal that the board didn't deal this out
alone.

Cheers
Christian

>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>



--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

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

[antelder]

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@...>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@...>
> wrote:
> > Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive
> > this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set
> > of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP?
>
> The svn log of the voter tool shows consistent contributions from all
> the proposed PMC members except Chris.
>
> The commit counts for the first six months of this year are:
>
>      11  gstein
>       8  jim
>       4  rubys
>
> Same names show up also in previous years along with others.
>
>

From the SVN history it looks like there are quite a few of those others
who have done work on the code in the past, is there a reason they aren't
on the proposed PMC, were they invited and declined or something? Seems a
shame to change the code to be read-only to so many who've already worked
on it in the past. Is it going to be easy for others to get commit access
again, perhaps as easy as I'm led to believe Subversion partial committers
is?

   ...ant

[Greg Stein-4]

On Jul 2, 2012 11:20 AM, "ant elder" <ant.elder@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@...
>wrote:
>...
> From the SVN history it looks like there are quite a few of those others
> who have done work on the code in the past, is there a reason they aren't
> on the proposed PMC, were they invited and declined or something?

The idea of getting this code out to the public hasn't been broadly
discussed yet. It will be pretty obvious as a TLP :-)

I'll be doing the work to extract the Apache Steve code from the private
repository and get it into the public one. I'll look to see who we're
missing (eg. Roy).

> Seems a
> shame to change the code to be read-only to so many who've already worked
> on it in the past. Is it going to be easy for others to get commit access
> again, perhaps as easy as I'm led to believe Subversion partial committers
> is?

Ha! As long as I'm on the PMC, you can count on that. I strongly believe
most PMCs are too rigid with commit access. And the communities that do RTC
via Jira... ridiculous with access. There is no way a person can screw up
the project in RTC, yet they withhold access, and cite all kinds of reasons
for doing so. In reality, they are simply excuses for *exclusionary*
behavior. I have yet to see a valid reason from those communities, but I
have little recourse to get them to fix their behavior.

So Ant: you wanna be on the PMC or have commit? :-)

Cheers,
-g

[Greg Stein-4]

On Jul 2, 2012 12:45 AM, "Alan D. Cabrera" <list@...> wrote:
>...
> I hope that someone can help me understand the current thinking about the
vibrant community aspect that seems to be a requirement for incubation/TLP
admission.

The underlying requirement is an open, inclusive, long-term community.
“Diverse" is a way to demonstrate that inclusivity. Growing a community is
a way to show long term health.

3 of the 4 proposed PMC members have been around the ASF for over a decade.
I doubt they're going away :-P  And while Chris may not have that duration,
I think we're stuck with him for a long time, too :-)

The Incubator is a mechanism for showing and growing a community, but it is
not a requirement for that. Any group of ASF Members showing up with a TLP
resolution would have my vote. They would have my confidence that they
understand the ASF and how a community should be organized.

Cheers,
-g