14 messages in org.apache.incubator.generalRe: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incuba...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Sam Ruby | Oct 13, 2016 1:27 pm | |
| Greg Stein | Oct 13, 2016 10:31 pm | |
| Mark Struberg | Oct 13, 2016 11:15 pm | |
| Sam Ruby | Oct 14, 2016 3:29 am | |
| John D. Ament | Oct 14, 2016 3:50 am | |
| Felix Meschberger | Oct 14, 2016 4:52 am | |
| Mark Struberg | Oct 14, 2016 6:37 am | |
| Felix Meschberger | Oct 14, 2016 7:16 am | |
| Greg Stein | Oct 14, 2016 7:26 am | |
| Mark Struberg | Oct 14, 2016 7:51 am | |
| Mark Struberg | Oct 14, 2016 8:00 am | |
| Jim Jagielski | Oct 17, 2016 8:30 am | |
| Sam Ruby | Oct 17, 2016 8:48 am | |
| Isabel Drost-Fromm | Oct 19, 2016 3:58 am |
| Subject: | Re: [discuss] Apache OpenWhisk Incubator Proposal | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Sam Ruby (rub...@intertwingly.net) | |
| Date: | Oct 17, 2016 8:48:15 am | |
| List: | org.apache.incubator.general | |
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
I see that this is a proposal that originates, basically from IBM.
IBM + Adobe
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...
+1
I see this as an issue to be resolved prior to exiting incubation, not something that should impact being accepted for incubation.
PS: Nothing against IBM of course: being a business, their strategy is wont to change, and we cannot (and should not) "fault" them when such a strategy change adversely affects a project. My only point is that, based on past experience, we should simply recognize that IBM dropping their support/resources on this project at some point is a very real, statistical possibility, and be serious in our efforts in ensuring this podling/project can and will survive that.
Agreed on both points: this is a general concern that should apply everywhere, and given IBM's past history is particularly relevant to this proposal.
- Sam Ruby