Poddlings length of time in the incubator

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Justin Mclean
Hi,

Below is a list of podlings that have been in the incubator for more than 2 years. What can be done to encourage these projects along? Do they have missing mentors or need some other assistance?

While not all podlings graduate in 2 years and may move towards graduation at different rates, I’m not sure that the being in the incubator for longer than 2 years achieves much.

Looking like they are soon to graduate:
Airflow
Singa
Unomi

Reasonably active:
Gearpump
S2Graph
Tamaya
Taverna
Tephra
Toree

Little or low activity:
BatchEE
Edgent
Joshua
Milagro
Myriad
ODF Toolkit
Pony Mail
Quickstep
Rya
Samoa
SensSoft

Possibly retirement?
ODF toolkit (7 years in the incubator!)

Retiring:
Gossip

There was some talk of BatchEE graduation ion their list but seems little activity. Could the mentors of that project follow up on that?

Edgent has had little activity since IBM staff have left and I'm not sure what can be done there.

Is there any reason that S2Graph, Taverna and Tephra are not closer to graduation?

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Dave Fisher-5
Hi -

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 25, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Below is a list of podlings that have been in the incubator for more than 2 years. What can be done to encourage these projects along? Do they have missing mentors or need some other assistance?
>
> While not all podlings graduate in 2 years and may move towards graduation at different rates, I’m not sure that the being in the incubator for longer than 2 years achieves much.
>
> Looking like they are soon to graduate:
> Airflow
> Singa
> Unomi
>
> Reasonably active:
> Gearpump
> S2Graph
> Tamaya
> Taverna
> Tephra
> Toree
>
> Little or low activity:
> BatchEE
> Edgent
> Joshua
> Milagro
> Myriad
> ODF Toolkit
> Pony Mail
> Quickstep
> Rya
> Samoa
> SensSoft
>
> Possibly retirement?
> ODF toolkit (7 years in the incubator!)

I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but survive on Github.

What do people think?

Regards,
Dave

>
> Retiring:
> Gossip
>
> There was some talk of BatchEE graduation ion their list but seems little activity. Could the mentors of that project follow up on that?
>
> Edgent has had little activity since IBM staff have left and I'm not sure what can be done there.
>
> Is there any reason that S2Graph, Taverna and Tephra are not closer to graduation?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but survive on Github.

I also saw you mentioned it in a previous incubator report for the podling. What are the domain names in question? I think doing as you suggested sounds like a good idea do you want to take that back to the PPMC and discuss and/or vote on doing that.

Any other IPMC members think differently?

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Mark Thomas
On 26/08/18 02:30, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but survive on Github.
>
> I also saw you mentioned it in a previous incubator report for the podling. What are the domain names in question? I think doing as you suggested sounds like a good idea do you want to take that back to the PPMC and discuss and/or vote on doing that.
>
> Any other IPMC members think differently?

The podling PMC can make a recommendation but the decision to release a
domain name to a third party needs the approval of VP Brand Management.

We also need to find the transfer agreements (if any) for those domains
to see what the ASF agreed to at the time of donation. It is not unheard
of for such agreements to include a clause that ownership reverts to the
donor if the podling does not graduate.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Julian Hyde-3
Regarding Quickstep. I am a mentor. (One mentor resigned earlier this
year, but the other mentor, Roman, is sufficiently engaged.)

I am concerned that Quickstep is not going to graduate. They are
functioning well as an academic project, as evidenced by papers at top
conferences[1], but all of their contributors are from the same
university department. They have made a few efforts at community
building, but do not seem to be building a user base, or attracting
outside contributions.

(Note that traffic for July and August is lower than usual, due to
their contributors being in academia. Traffic on the dev list should
pick up somewhat in September.)

Embrace of Apache has been half-hearted. Note, for instance, that
their twitter account [2] still references their pre-Apache home page
[3] rather than their Apache page [4].

Quickstep made their first release in March 2017 but have not made
further releases. I am going encourage them to make a new release
soon. That will stimulate some community activity. But I am dubious
that this will attract outside contributors.

Julian

[1] http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p663-patel.pdf

[2] https://twitter.com/ApacheQuickstep

[3] http://quickstep.cs.wisc.edu/

[4] http://quickstep.apache.org/
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 10:17 AM Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 26/08/18 02:30, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but survive on Github.
> >
> > I also saw you mentioned it in a previous incubator report for the podling. What are the domain names in question? I think doing as you suggested sounds like a good idea do you want to take that back to the PPMC and discuss and/or vote on doing that.
> >
> > Any other IPMC members think differently?
>
> The podling PMC can make a recommendation but the decision to release a
> domain name to a third party needs the approval of VP Brand Management.
>
> We also need to find the transfer agreements (if any) for those domains
> to see what the ASF agreed to at the time of donation. It is not unheard
> of for such agreements to include a clause that ownership reverts to the
> donor if the podling does not graduate.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Ted Dunning
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-5
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 5:33 PM Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi -
>
> ...
> > Possibly retirement?
> > ODF toolkit (7 years in the incubator!)
>
> I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was
> recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover
> the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent
> developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but survive
> on Github.
>
> What do people think?
>

Sounds like a perfect one person project. We should let them have any
non-Apache domains that they want.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Greg Stein-4
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:22 PM Ted Dunning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 5:33 PM Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > ...
> > > Possibly retirement?
> > > ODF toolkit (7 years in the incubator!)
> >
> > I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was
> > recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover
> > the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent
> > developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but
> survive
> > on Github.
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
>
> Sounds like a perfect one person project. We should let them have any
> non-Apache domains that they want.
>

We only own "odftoolkit.org" now. There used to be about a dozen (eg.
domain squatting approach from the prior holders), and when they came up
for renewal, I pushed back. The PPMC requested us to hold odftoolkit.org as
the only one ever actually used. So, we dropped the others, saving $$ for
the Foundation.

The IPMC is the "owner" of this domain (with some dotted-line to Brand),
with Infra handling the mechanics. If the IPMC decides to retire
odftoolkit, and IPMC/Brand wants to release the domain to a new caretaker,
then a simple email (or Jira ticket) can make it happen. Easy stuff.

Cheers,
Greg
InfraAdmin, ASF
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Roman Shaposhnik
In reply to this post by Julian Hyde-3
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Julian Hyde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Regarding Quickstep. I am a mentor. (One mentor resigned earlier this
> year, but the other mentor, Roman, is sufficiently engaged.)
>
> I am concerned that Quickstep is not going to graduate. They are
> functioning well as an academic project, as evidenced by papers at top
> conferences[1], but all of their contributors are from the same
> university department. They have made a few efforts at community
> building, but do not seem to be building a user base, or attracting
> outside contributions.
>
> (Note that traffic for July and August is lower than usual, due to
> their contributors being in academia. Traffic on the dev list should
> pick up somewhat in September.)
>
> Embrace of Apache has been half-hearted. Note, for instance, that
> their twitter account [2] still references their pre-Apache home page
> [3] rather than their Apache page [4].
>
> Quickstep made their first release in March 2017 but have not made
> further releases. I am going encourage them to make a new release
> soon. That will stimulate some community activity. But I am dubious
> that this will attract outside contributors.

Basically, I'm +1 on every single point that Julian makes, but having
said this I'm unsure as to where can we go from here.

In the past we typically shied away from setting deadlines for certain
milestones in community development within podlings. This, in my view,
somewhat encouraged this phenomenon of an "eternal podling" (active
enough not to be in the attic, not active/ApacheWay'y enough to
graduate). I feel like Quickstep, for example, can exist in this state
indefinitely.


Thanks,
Roman.

> Julian
>
> [1] http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p663-patel.pdf
>
> [2] https://twitter.com/ApacheQuickstep
>
> [3] http://quickstep.cs.wisc.edu/
>
> [4] http://quickstep.apache.org/
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 10:17 AM Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 26/08/18 02:30, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but survive on Github.
>> >
>> > I also saw you mentioned it in a previous incubator report for the podling. What are the domain names in question? I think doing as you suggested sounds like a good idea do you want to take that back to the PPMC and discuss and/or vote on doing that.
>> >
>> > Any other IPMC members think differently?
>>
>> The podling PMC can make a recommendation but the decision to release a
>> domain name to a third party needs the approval of VP Brand Management.
>>
>> We also need to find the transfer agreements (if any) for those domains
>> to see what the ASF agreed to at the time of donation. It is not unheard
>> of for such agreements to include a clause that ownership reverts to the
>> donor if the podling does not graduate.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Greg Stein-4
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:01 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>...

> In the past we typically shied away from setting deadlines for certain
> milestones in community development within podlings. This, in my view,
> somewhat encouraged this phenomenon of an "eternal podling" (active
> enough not to be in the attic, not active/ApacheWay'y enough to
> graduate). I feel like Quickstep, for example, can exist in this state
> indefinitely.


I think there is/can/should be a different bar for TLPs "idle-ness", and
that of a podling. A TLP has confirmed itself for operation/oversight, even
when it may slow down. A podling hasn't had that confirmation, however.

One of the more continual issues within the Incubator is the amount of
mentor energy to "go around". It seems that if a podling has hit a dead
end, then it is best for the Incubator (as a whole) to go ahead and retire
it, and apply its energies to podlings that are making progress towards
graduation.

Cheers,
-g
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

lewis john mcgibbney-2
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean
Hi Justin,
Response inline

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:29 PM <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> From: Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:43:36 +1000
> Subject: Poddlings length of time in the incubator
> Hi,
>
> Below is a list of podlings that have been in the incubator for more than
> 2 years. What can be done to encourage these projects along? Do they have
> missing mentors or need some other assistance?
>

W.r.t Joshua, the primary leader moved on to other things. We were also
discussing graduation not too long ago but again, similar to with SensSoft,
the mentorship didn't act in time and we are in the current status.
I think it is time to graduate Joshua as the software itself is very
healthy and I know there are folks using the project. I am going to make an
attempt to reboot the project and encourage graduation.
Lewis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Roman Shaposhnik
In reply to this post by Greg Stein-4
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:01 PM Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>...
>
>> In the past we typically shied away from setting deadlines for certain
>> milestones in community development within podlings. This, in my view,
>> somewhat encouraged this phenomenon of an "eternal podling" (active
>> enough not to be in the attic, not active/ApacheWay'y enough to
>> graduate). I feel like Quickstep, for example, can exist in this state
>> indefinitely.
>
>
> I think there is/can/should be a different bar for TLPs "idle-ness", and
> that of a podling. A TLP has confirmed itself for operation/oversight, even
> when it may slow down. A podling hasn't had that confirmation, however.
>
> One of the more continual issues within the Incubator is the amount of
> mentor energy to "go around". It seems that if a podling has hit a dead
> end, then it is best for the Incubator (as a whole) to go ahead and retire
> it, and apply its energies to podlings that are making progress towards
> graduation.

True, but the other argument is that the process is self-throttling: the slower
the podling gets, the less energy it requires from the mentor
(although, I suppose
there's a "fixed energy cost" in chasing reports, etc. below which it
will never go).

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

P. Taylor Goetz
In reply to this post by Roman Shaposhnik


> On Aug 28, 2018, at 9:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Julian Hyde <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Regarding Quickstep. I am a mentor. (One mentor resigned earlier this
>> year, but the other mentor, Roman, is sufficiently engaged.)
>>
>> I am concerned that Quickstep is not going to graduate. They are
>> functioning well as an academic project, as evidenced by papers at top
>> conferences[1], but all of their contributors are from the same
>> university department. They have made a few efforts at community
>> building, but do not seem to be building a user base, or attracting
>> outside contributions.
>>
>> (Note that traffic for July and August is lower than usual, due to
>> their contributors being in academia. Traffic on the dev list should
>> pick up somewhat in September.)
>>
>> Embrace of Apache has been half-hearted. Note, for instance, that
>> their twitter account [2] still references their pre-Apache home page
>> [3] rather than their Apache page [4].
>>
>> Quickstep made their first release in March 2017 but have not made
>> further releases. I am going encourage them to make a new release
>> soon. That will stimulate some community activity. But I am dubious
>> that this will attract outside contributors.
>
> Basically, I'm +1 on every single point that Julian makes, but having
> said this I'm unsure as to where can we go from here.
>
> In the past we typically shied away from setting deadlines for certain
> milestones in community development within podlings. This, in my view,
> somewhat encouraged this phenomenon of an "eternal podling" (active
> enough not to be in the attic, not active/ApacheWay'y enough to
> graduate). I feel like Quickstep, for example, can exist in this state
> indefinitely.

FWIW, for the DLab proposal [1], we added a voluntary incubation period max of 2 years, essentially saying we didn’t want to become a resource drain. I haven’t checked to see if any other projects have done this.

I’m also not sure if that’s in any way binding, or what the mechanics of that would be. I imagine at the 2-year mark there would be a PPMC vote to either a) retire, or b) request additional time from the IPMC. If b, then the IPMC would either approve or deny the extension request.

>
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.

-Taylor

[1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DLabProposal

>
>> Julian
>>
>> [1] http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p663-patel.pdf
>>
>> [2] https://twitter.com/ApacheQuickstep
>>
>> [3] http://quickstep.cs.wisc.edu/
>>
>> [4] http://quickstep.apache.org/
>>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 10:17 AM Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/08/18 02:30, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but survive on Github.
>>>>
>>>> I also saw you mentioned it in a previous incubator report for the podling. What are the domain names in question? I think doing as you suggested sounds like a good idea do you want to take that back to the PPMC and discuss and/or vote on doing that.
>>>>
>>>> Any other IPMC members think differently?
>>>
>>> The podling PMC can make a recommendation but the decision to release a
>>> domain name to a third party needs the approval of VP Brand Management.
>>>
>>> We also need to find the transfer agreements (if any) for those domains
>>> to see what the ASF agreed to at the time of donation. It is not unheard
>>> of for such agreements to include a clause that ownership reverts to the
>>> donor if the podling does not graduate.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Andy Seaborne-4
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean


On 26/08/18 00:43, Justin Mclean wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Below is a list of podlings that have been in the incubator for more than 2 years. What can be done to encourage these projects along? Do they have missing mentors or need some other assistance?
>
> While not all podlings graduate in 2 years and may move towards graduation at different rates, I’m not sure that the being in the incubator for longer than 2 years achieves much.
>
> Looking like they are soon to graduate:
> Airflow
> Singa
> Unomi
>
> Reasonably active:
> Gearpump
> S2Graph
> Tamaya
> Taverna
> Tephra
> Toree
>
> Little or low activity:
> BatchEE
> Edgent
> Joshua
> Milagro
> Myriad
> ODF Toolkit
> Pony Mail
> Quickstep
> Rya
> Samoa
> SensSoft
>
> Possibly retirement?
> ODF toolkit (7 years in the incubator!)
>
> Retiring:
> Gossip
>
> There was some talk of BatchEE graduation ion their list but seems little activity. Could the mentors of that project follow up on that?
>
> Edgent has had little activity since IBM staff have left and I'm not sure what can be done there.
>
> Is there any reason that S2Graph, Taverna and Tephra are not closer to graduation?

Taverna has had a decent uptick on the technical side driven by a
successful GSoC.  Energy from the PPMC is needed to make sure all code
has been released, or at least passed licensing, (including moving other
stuff out for now), then graduate.

     Andy


>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by Roman Shaposhnik
Hi,

> Basically, I'm +1 on every single point that Julian makes, but having
> said this I'm unsure as to where can we go from here.

IMO Ask the podlings in questing if they need help and how long they intends to stay in incubation / what are the issues stopping them from graduating. It may be that they require more time for community building but may be for other reasons.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by P. Taylor Goetz
Hi,

> FWIW, for the DLab proposal [1], we added a voluntary incubation period max of 2 years, essentially saying we didn’t want to become a resource drain. I haven’t checked to see if any other projects have done this.

Nice idea. I think we shovel add to the template “How long do you think you'll spend in incubation” to the proposal template - what do others think? At least they sets some expectations even if it’s not binding.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Ted Dunning
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:30 PM Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> ...
> > FWIW, for the DLab proposal [1], we added a voluntary incubation period
> max of 2 years, essentially saying we didn’t want to become a resource
> drain. I haven’t checked to see if any other projects have done this.
>
> Nice idea. I think we shovel add to the template “How long do you think
> you'll spend in incubation” to the proposal template - what do others
> think? At least they sets some expectations even if it’s not binding.
>

I think that is a great suggestion.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by lewis john mcgibbney-2
Hi,

Thanks Lewis for that. Lets see if we can get these two projects to graduate. If they need help with that (i.e. mentors are missing) please ask for help here.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Chris Mattmann-4
I’m game to help with Joshua for sure. I haven’t really been participating in Senssoft.

But I know that community (originally from XDATA) and they want to do well.

 

I think that the only thing next on Joshua is to post the resolution to graduate, which
I never got around to doing.

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

 

 

 

From: Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:39 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

 

Hi,

 

Thanks Lewis for that. Lets see if we can get these two projects to graduate. If they need help with that (i.e. mentors are missing) please ask for help here.

 

Thanks,

Justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]

For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

P. Taylor Goetz
In reply to this post by Ted Dunning
I’d be a +1.

-Taylor

> On Aug 31, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Ted Dunning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:30 PM Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>> FWIW, for the DLab proposal [1], we added a voluntary incubation period
>> max of 2 years, essentially saying we didn’t want to become a resource
>> drain. I haven’t checked to see if any other projects have done this.
>>
>> Nice idea. I think we shovel add to the template “How long do you think
>> you'll spend in incubation” to the proposal template - what do others
>> think? At least they sets some expectations even if it’s not binding.
>>
>
> I think that is a great suggestion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Poddlings length of time in the incubator

Dave Fisher-5
In reply to this post by Greg Stein-4
Hi -

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 26, 2018, at 9:08 PM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:22 PM Ted Dunning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 5:33 PM Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> Possibly retirement?
>>>> ODF toolkit (7 years in the incubator!)
>>>
>>> I’ve discussed this some on the ODF toolkit dev list. Development was
>>> recently moved to Git. The Incubator needs to decide if we will turnover
>>> the domains that were donated in 2011 by IBM(?) to the only consistent
>>> developer. If that is true then we can quickly let them retire, but
>> survive
>>> on Github.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like a perfect one person project. We should let them have any
>> non-Apache domains that they want.
>>
>
> We only own "odftoolkit.org" now. There used to be about a dozen (eg.
> domain squatting approach from the prior holders), and when they came up
> for renewal, I pushed back. The PPMC requested us to hold odftoolkit.org as
> the only one ever actually used. So, we dropped the others, saving $$ for
> the Foundation.
>
> The IPMC is the "owner" of this domain (with some dotted-line to Brand),
> with Infra handling the mechanics. If the IPMC decides to retire
> odftoolkit, and IPMC/Brand wants to release the domain to a new caretaker,
> then a simple email (or Jira ticket) can make it happen. Easy stuff.

Thanks Greg.

I’m seeing one new person and one of the early developers decloak today. Let’s see if something is finally happening organically. If not in a week or two then we can start their egress.

Regards,
Dave

>
> Cheers,
> Greg
> InfraAdmin, ASF


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12