Open Stack

On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 00:20 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> All this said, I think paragraph three is the only area where a
> revised motion helps me come to consensus. I want a welcoming,
> worthwhile incubation process, that's important to me. What's also
> important is that we are ready to define the responsibilities to exit
> incubation. This sentence just isn't enough... "demonstrate" and
> "suitability" and "inclusion" and "coordinated" aren't enough...
> 
> "We see Incubation as a trial period where promising projects have the
>   opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for inclusion in our
>   coordinated releases." 

Care to propose a stronger wording? I suspect there's general consensus
that Incubation should be no cakewalk and that the bar should actually
be quite high for projects to exit Incubation.

Back to the docs example again, it may be a case that there needs to be
high bar for the docs required to exit Incubation (be it API, config,
deployer, user, etc. docs) and that we're not so much saying that the
developers on the project must write those docs but rather that if the
project isn't interesting enough to attract a certain level of docs
contributions, then it's just not interesting enough, period.

Cheers,
Mark.