DUE TO SPAM, SIGN-UP IS DISABLED. Goto Selfserve wiki signup and request an account.
...
Kafka, created at LinkedIn, joined the Incubator in 2011.
Its first ASF release appeared the same year, and regular cadence followed.
Contributors from Netflix, Yahoo, and independents joined early, and mentors reinforced consistent communication and voting practices that became reference points for later podlings.
As the ecosystem grew commercially, the community community continued to discuss how to maintain vendor-neutral governance as Confluent’s influence increasedreflect on the balance of governance as the commercial ecosystem expanded.
Key Point: Neutrality is an ongoing practice, not a milestone.
What Mentors and PPMCs Can Do: Reinforce that ASF decisions happen on public lists, and revisit governance balance as ecosystems expand.
...
Common Patterns Seen in Podlings
| Pattern | What It Looks Like | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Public discussion replaces internal coordination | Plans and releases decided on mailing lists | Builds trust and visibility |
| Multiple companies in key roles | Contributors from several organisations lead votes | Demonstrates shared ownership |
| Independent contributors recognised | Non-corporate participants acknowledged in reports | Reinforces inclusivity and balance |
| Mentors guide, not manage | Mentors explain ASF process without directing work | Encourages community learning |
| Corporate identity balanced with ASF identity | ASF brand leads communication and websites | Reduces confusion over ownership |
| Vendor-neutral governance | Votes and discussions include multiple organisations with equal weight | Prevents dominance or perception of bias |
These patterns show practical ways for podlings to demonstrate independence and shared responsibility.
...
Early Warning Signs
- The The same company staff initiate most [VOTE] and [DISCUSS] threads
- Private coordination happens before public discussion
- Mentors Mentors receive updates privately rather than through public lists
- Company Company branding dominates project materials
- Independent contributors hesitate to propose releases or lead discussions
- A company expects committer status as part of employment performance rather than merit
- One company’s views regularly prevail without consensus or explanation
When these appear, mentors should raise the topic early and frame independence and neutrality as shared goals.
...
This table helps mentors and PPMCs reflect on where visible independence is strong and where it may need attention.
It is a self-review tool, not a formal ASF checklist.
| Area | What to Ask | Signs of Healthy Independence | Signs That Need Attention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transparency | Are all decisions on dev@? | Votes and decisions traceable publicly | Private coordination remains common |
| Diversity of Roles | Who leads releases and reports? | Visible rotation of responsibilities | Same people or company each time |
| Decision Making | Are votes and discussions well documented? | [DISCUSS] and [VOTE] threads link to outcomes | Decisions happen informally or are unclear |
| Governance Balance | Are company and community goals clearly separated? | ASF-first communication and vendor-neutral decision making | One company dominates votes or governance discussions |
| Recognition | Are independents visible and thanked? | Independent contributions appear in reports | Only corporate staff credited |
| Mentor Engagement | Are mentors guiding policy use, not decisions? | Mentors reinforce openness and culture | Mentors substitute for PPMC leadership |
...
Using These Examples
For Mentors
...
Independence is central to ASF culture. It is not the absence of company participation but the presence of balance, transparency, and respect for individual merit. Corporate support can strengthen a project when it aligns with ASF principles of open governance and community consensus. Mentors and PPMCs share responsibility for making this independence and vendor neutrality visible and sustainable. Independence within the ASF means open decision making, shared consensus, and recognition of contributors as individuals who earn trust through contribution.
...
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.