Alan Gates wrote:
> As the discussion was varied I will not attempt to summarize it other
> than to note that the majority of voters felt that Pig should not become
> a TLP at this time.
Fundamentally the question should not be, "do you want to become a TLP"
but rather "why can't you become a TLP"? Compelling answers might be:
- "Because we're actually not a distinct community. Most of our
committers are also active in other parts of Hadoop. We're a separate
code tree so we can release on separate cycles."
- "Because most of our code is still coming in batched commits from a
single company. All the real development is happening in their private
repository, not in public with community involvement."
The former would indicate that you should perhaps remain in Hadoop
indefinitely. The latter would indicate that the Hadoop PMC should help
your developers understand the importance of community development at
Apache, or, failing that, encourage your code to leave Apache for
Github, Google Code or Sourceforge, which has no such requirements.
Apache's mission is to support, open collaborative development.
Organizationally, each independent developer community, once it's
operating, should ideally report directly to the board.
I saw no such compelling arguments in the discussion you cited. Did I
Alternately, the Hadoop PMC could decide it wishes to continue to flout
the advice of the board against umbrella projects. If we did this, we
might consider developing an internal, regularly scheduled, subproject
review process. We could present this process to the board as part of
our rationale for keeping several subprojects.