atom feed14 messages in org.apache.incubator.generalRe: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incuba...
FromSent OnAttachments
Sam RubyOct 13, 2016 1:27 pm 
Greg SteinOct 13, 2016 10:31 pm 
Mark StrubergOct 13, 2016 11:15 pm 
Sam RubyOct 14, 2016 3:29 am 
John D. AmentOct 14, 2016 3:50 am 
Felix MeschbergerOct 14, 2016 4:52 am 
Mark StrubergOct 14, 2016 6:37 am 
Felix MeschbergerOct 14, 2016 7:16 am 
Greg SteinOct 14, 2016 7:26 am 
Mark StrubergOct 14, 2016 7:51 am 
Mark StrubergOct 14, 2016 8:00 am 
Jim JagielskiOct 17, 2016 8:30 am 
Sam RubyOct 17, 2016 8:48 am 
Isabel Drost-FrommOct 19, 2016 3:58 am 
Subject:Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal
From:Isabel Drost-Fromm (
Date:Oct 19, 2016 3:58:06 am

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:48:15AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

I have an issue, based on past history, related to IBM's continued efforts and dedication on ASF projects. I will not mention specific projects, but the ASF has a number of projects which died (or almost died and only were revived via super-human effort) when IBM decided to switch gears and no longer support the project.

Now most of all this was our fault: the whole intent of Incubation and the Apache Way is to prevent dependence on a single person or entity: diversity means being able to continue, in a healthy way, should someone (or some-thing) decide that the project is no longer for them.

Considering all this, I would hope and expect that this podling take extra steps to ensure that we don't get "burned" again...


I see this as an issue to be resolved prior to exiting incubation, not something that should impact being accepted for incubation.

The above reads like we have experience with bringing projects back to life when one sponsor of time for committers goes away. From that experience do we have a description of which concrete steps worked in the past?