[sakai2-tcc] Infrastructure discussion for future meeting?

[Steve Swinsburg]

This whole discussion came about because it was suggested that a very
popular tool be removed from core. There is currently no way to measure a
tool against another one.

I simply suggested that the upcoming incubation process might be able to
quantify that decision. People then wanted dates and details, which haven't
been fully worked out yet and because of that, the process and those in
Apereo were attacked for not being open.

I thought it was important to let people know that an incubation process
was being worked on, and that any major decision like a tool removal should
probably be a guided one.

This thread has clearly spiralled out of control though I have stoodfast in
defending myself and the process that I am working on, with many others, to
help improve the quality of Apereo projects going forward. I have been
involved with incubation in Jasig for a long time and its a great thing to
go though because you know people are helping and want to see your project
succeed.

Details and dates will be forthcoming in the coming weeks as per Ian's
email. It will be a very helpful and friendly process, so chin up and turn
frowns upside down.

Lets get back to making our software even better.

cheers,
Steve





On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Charles Severance <csev at umich.edu> wrote:

>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 5:53 AM, Steve Swinsburg wrote:
>
> I get the under resourced issue, but my concern is when a new project goes
> thorough the incubation process and needs to meet requirement X to
> graduate, it may be that the CLE or other flagship product doesn't meet
> that requirement. So it will be inconsistent and unfair to that new
> project, just because these projects were grandfathered in. It would be
> ideal to hold all projects to the same quality levels.
>
>
> Steve, the problem is one of tone here.  Like all things in open source
> volunteer communities, incubation needs to find its place and bring its
> value.  I would strongly suggest that you stop trying to get this group to
> agree to anything w.r.t incubation before it even exists.  So far the
> greatest impediment to a good relationship between the as-yet-unformed
> incubation group and the Sakai 2 TCC is the way you persist in arguing
> about it.
>
> If I were another open source project listening to this public
> conversation I would not even consider being part of Apereo given how
> strident you seem about incubation as "the keepers of the gate" and not as
> helpful resources to help projects make make the transition into Apereo.
> When I have talked to people within the Apache organization about
> incubation they were eager to help us get through it - they put a very
> friendly face on Apache - I was surprised and pleased at how much they kept
> saying they could help with things that I was not an expert on. They were
> the "acquisitions arm" of Apache and they were *really nice* and *really
> friendly*.
>
> I am 100% sure your intentions are good and 100% sure that Apereo
> incubation will be a fine process - but in the interim, the tone of your
> public statements are making Apereo and Sakai look bad.  And as long as you
> persist in making these statements - we will continue to challenge them
> because we do not want to imply that silence is assent.  At this point
> everyone (including you) has all made points once or twice - now we are
> just going in circles and wasting time.
>
> /Chuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20130311/2b2df7cc/attachment.html