Overview of Proposal
The criteria used to decide whether to approve or not a project proposal is currently not documented anywhere. This proposal is about addressing this gap by developing a document to be used as a reference for what is to be considered when evaluating a project proposal, similar to the Incubation exit criteria.
Formal Proposal(s)
Add project incubation entry considerations · Pull Request #13 hyperledger/tsc
Action Items
- Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date
Reviewed By
- Angelo De Caro
- Arnaud J Le Hors
- Arun S M
- Baohua Yang
- Bobbi Muscara
- Danno Ferrin
- David Enyeart
- Gari Singh
- Grace Hartley
- Hart Montgomery
- Maria Teresa Nieto
- Mark Wagner
- Nathan George
- Tracy Kuhrt
- Troy Ronda
9 Comments
Hart Montgomery
Even if we don't have total agreement on a formal criteria, I think it would be good if we could put together a document of recommendations in the form of "plusses" and "minuses." TSC members might not agree on the importance of all of these, and each project being proposed for incubation would likely not have all of the "plusses," but hopefully we could come up with a criteria such that a proposal that had most of the "plusses" and few of the "minuses" would be overwhelmingly likely to be accepted, and the converse would also hold true. This would let proposers make informed decisions about whether to submit a proposal or wait.
In the same vein, some guidelines suggesting whether a contribution would be more appropriate for labs or incubation would also be a good thing.
Hart Montgomery
These could be "living" documents as well, and updated whenever the TSC decided to clarify.
Hart Montgomery
Some criteria proposed so far:
So far, we have never accepted a project that has not met this requirement(see Tracy's comment), and this ensures that companies submitting code have made steps towards open governance.I probably missed some things, so please feel free to add/comment (or fix what I've written above if you are Danno or Angelo).
Tracy Kuhrt
Related to the point of contributors/maintainers from two independent entities not being accepted into incubation
We have accepted three projects with a single organization: Burrow, Composer, Cello. Since we have as part of the exit incubation criteria the need for maintainers from more than one companies, I would not stop a project from coming in with only a single organization if they have some history of doing open source development.
Hart Montgomery
You are right! I confused the sponsors and contributors for those projects. Thanks for the correction.
Danno Ferrin
I don't know about "a long time" but they should be open source for some time. Projects outside of the first year have either come up through labs or have been existing open source projects with their own governance. I don't know if we should designate a magic number but I don't think it needs to be a long time.
Danno Ferrin
As for contributors. Maintainers from one company can be fine, but I would want to see non company contributions.
I do think we should have a standard that there be multiple maintainers, three ideally as a minimum. They can all be from the same company. Solang was rejected from incubation because if this.
Arun S M
Collecting relevant information floating around on this topic from HIP:
Arun S M
Few thoughts on this topic:
Quorum requirements and minimum expectations:
Open source contribution/governance:
Failing to all or some of these requirement, a project maybe sent to Hyperledger Labs for observation. The project can propose back to TSC in 2 months after it is sent for observation. Note that these observations will be considered in addition to above points in such a case.
For those projects which are graduating from Hyperledger Labs, there can be concession on points such as requirement of public review of projects' charter. It is good to do, but is an optional.