DUE TO SPAM, SIGN-UP IS DISABLED. Goto Selfserve wiki signup and request an account.
...
Together, these examples build a shared record of ASF experience in community development.
...
Purpose and Context
Most Many podlings begin as small teams from one organisation. To become a successful Apache project, the team must expand to include contributors and decision-makers from diverse backgrounds and locations. Learning to work openly and inclusively is the heart of incubation.
...
- Are discussions and decisions happening on public lists, as Pinot learned to do after sharing regular summaries?
- Who usually starts votes and releases — ? Is it always the same people, as in early APISIX before rotation was encouraged?
- When did someone new last lead a review or proposal, as Superset did when it welcomed outside contributors?
- Do contributors from other regions or languages take part, as ECharts achieved through bilingual updates?
...
Pinot entered incubation in 2018 with strong support from LinkedIn.
Most discussions initially took place in Slack and GitHub comments.
Mentors reminded the encouraged the team that to make decisions should be made on dev@.
Regular public summaries replaced private chats.
By 2020, contributors from organisations such as Uber , and StarTree, and as well as several independent developers, were active on the list, and more people joined in release votes.
...
Superset joined the Incubator in 2017. Many There was a growing queue of outside pull requests were waiting for review, a common occurrence for fast-growing projects.
Mentors encouraged regular, open reviews of external work on dev@.
Within a year, contributors from several companies were active, and new committers were added from outside Airbnb.
...
Airflow experienced rapid growth after its founding in 2016.
Mentors saw that votes and decisions were being made in issue comments.
The community adopted strengthened its use of clear [DISCUSS] and [VOTE] threads linked to JIRA issues.
This kept decisions clear and supported healthy growth.
...
ECharts entered incubation in 2018, originating from Baidu, with discussions primarily conducted in Chinese.
Mentors and PPMC members started bilingual documentation and summaries of local chats on dev@.
Contributors were encouraged to post in English, even if imperfectlytheir English was imperfect, and volunteers assisted with translations.
Participation widened to include developers contributors from many multiple regions, reflecting broader community engagement.
Key Point: Inclusion can grow gradually while staying transparent.
What Mentors and PPMCs Can Do: Support bilingual summaries and be patient with contributors learning ASF communication norms.
...
APISIX joined in 2019 with strong support from one company.
Mentors encouraged rotating release managers and inviting outside contributors to lead tasks.
Public planning threads made leadership decision-making and responsibilities more visible.
By graduation, several independent contributors were leading releases and features.
...
Common Patterns Seen in Podlings
| Pattern | What It Looks Like | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Public discussion replaces private coordination | dev@ is active and decisions are visible | Transparency builds trust |
| External pull requests receive timely replies | New contributors stay engaged | Respect for contribution improves retention |
| Rotating roles | Different people lead releases and votes | Reduces dependency on one group |
| Cross-region participation | Names from different countries appear on lists | Diversity improves continuity |
| Questions over instructions | Mentors and PPMCs invite discussion | Builds independence and shared understanding |
These patterns can appear in different forms, but each one shows visible learning of The Apache Way.
...
This table helps mentors and PPMCs discuss what is working and where openness can improve.
It is a self-review tool, not an ASF checklist.
| Area | What to Ask | Signs of Healthy Growth | Signs That Need Attention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transparency | Are discussions and decisions on dev@? | Decisions and votes are traceable | Important work happens off-list |
| Participation | Who joins votes and design talks? | People from several organisations contribute | The same group dominates discussion |
| Decision Making | How is consensus recorded? | [DISCUSS] and [VOTE] threads are consistent | Decisions made informally |
| Shared Responsibility | Who leads releases and reports? | Roles rotate and are public | The same people or company lead every time |
| Recognition and Inclusion | How are new contributors supported? | New participants are thanked and invited to help | Outside work goes unnoticed |
...
Using These Examples
For Mentors
...
Make decisions public
If any issues arise off-list, post a brief public summary and continue the discussion ondev@. (Pinot)Share who leadsworks
Rotate the next vote initiator, release leadmanager, or report author. (APISIX)Welcome new contributors
Post open invitations for small recurring tasks. Thank contributors publicly. (Superset)Support multiple languages and time zones
Post bilingual summaries and encourage contributors to ask for translation help. (ECharts)Keep governance visible
Use mailing lists for all [DISCUSS] and [VOTE] threads, with clear links to issues. (Airflow)Track people, not just commits
Note how many unique names join votes or reports each quarter. Mention this in reports. (Airflow, Superset)Recognise openness
Thank those who bring discussions back todev@and highlight shared effort. (Pinot)
...
A Shared Record of Experience
This case study summarises information from ASF public mailing lists, podling reports, and status pages. It was written from the perspective of observers outside the individual podling communities. Community members may hold differing views on events or timelines, and minor simplifications may be made for clarity or training purposes. It includes historical information drawn from public ASF sources and does not represent the current state of any project mentioned. This content may contain errors or omissions due to AI-generated elements. However, the material has been reviewed and verified by a human for accuracy. These factors do not reduce its value as a reference for understanding patterns of incubation and global collaboration.