Sentry Podling Maturity Assessment

Overview

This is an assessment of the Sentry podling’s maturity, meant to help inform the decision (of the mentors, community, Incubator PMC and ASF Board of Directors) to graduate it as a top-level Apache project.

It is based on the ASF project maturity model at https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html

Maintaining such a file is a new, experimental idea as part of the continuous improvement of the ASF incubation process. Sentry is one of the first podlings where that happens.

   Status of this document

All open items resolved, ready for PPMC approval voting.

Overall assessment

All the below items are marked OK, Sentry looks ready to graduate with some caveats discussed below, discussions are ongoing on the project’s dev list as I write this (November 2015).

Maturity model assessment

Mentors and community members are encouraged to contribute to this and comment on it.

Code

CD10

The project produces Open Source software, for distribution to the public at no charge.

OK: Yes, it does.

CD20

The project's code is easily discoverable and publicly accessible.

OK: All information is available on the Project website: http://sentry.incubator.apache.org/development/source_and_guide.html

CD30

The code can be built in a reproducible way using widely available standard tools.

OK: Sentry uses maven.

CD40

The full history of the project's code is available via a source code control system, in a way that allows any released version to be recreated.

OK: Sentry uses git. Repo at: https://github.com/apache/incubator-sentry

CD50

The provenance of each line of code is established via the source code control system, in a reliable way based on strong authentication of the committer. When third-party contributions are committed, commit messages provide reliable information about the code provenance.

OK: See CD40

Licenses and Copyright

LC10

The code is released under the Apache License, version 2.0.

OK, LICENSE file has been accepted in release votes.

LC20

Libraries that are mandatory dependencies of the project's code do not create more restrictions than the Apache License does.

OK: Might need to update the list of dependencies. How do we generate the list of dependencies? Script to generate?

Initial list of dependencies: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SentryProposal

License file: https://github.com/apache/incubator-sentry/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Release reviews have not shown any incompatible licenses.

LC30

The libraries mentioned in LC20 are available as Open Source software.

OK: See LC20

LC40

Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to commit and how they need to identify code that is not their own.

OK

LC50

The copyright ownership of everything that the project produces is clearly defined and documented.

OK: Yes, all committers have ICLAs on file. How do we check?

Releases

RE10

Releases consist of source code, distributed using standard and open archive formats that are expected to stay readable in the long term.

OK: Verified in release votes.

RE20

Releases are approved by the project's PMC (see CS10), in order to make them an act of the Foundation.

OK. Releases have been voted by PPMCs and IPMCs.

RE30

Releases are signed and/or distributed along with digests that can be reliably used to validate the downloaded archives.

OK: Verified in release votes.

RE40

Convenience binaries can be distributed alongside source code but they are not Apache Releases -- they are just a convenience provided with no guarantee.

OK: We make source only releases.

Quality

QU10

The project is open and honest about the quality of its code. Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.

OK. Quality is always a high priority for Sentry.

QU20

The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software

OK.

QU30

The project provides a well-documented channel to report security issues, along with a documented way of responding to them.

OK: We have a security mailing list, we also point to the apache security page for the process: http://sentry.incubator.apache.org/community/mailing_lists.html

QU40

The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and documentation to help users transition to new features.

OK: We do provide upgrade scripts to upgrade to newer release.

QU50

The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely manner.

OK: Yes, we strive to keep the response times low. I think it is important to keep track of the response times to make sure all items are getting attention, wondering how do other projects measure it and keep the community honest?

Community

CO10

The project has a well-known homepage that points to all the information required to operate according to this maturity model.

OK: http://sentry.incubator.apache.org/

CO20

The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.

OK: Yes, community welcomes contributions. Do we need to add any data points?

CO30

Contributions include not only source code, but also documentation, constructive bug reports, constructive discussions, marketing and generally anything that adds value to the project.

OK: Most of our contributors also work on documentation, discussions, design reviews and answering questions on mailing lists.

CO40

The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the project.

OK: Sentry project has elected a few committers during incubation.

CO50

The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the same for all contributors.

OK, based on the standard ASF docs.

CO60

The community operates based on consensus of its members (see CS10) who have decision power. Dictators, benevolent or not, are not welcome in Apache projects.

OK: Demonstrated during incubation.

CO70

The project strives to answer user questions in a timely manner.

OK

Consensus Building

CS10

The project maintains a public list of its contributors who have decision power -- the project's PMC (Project Management Committee) consists of those contributors.

OK: http://sentry.incubator.apache.org/community/people.html#ppmc

CS20

Decisions are made by consensus among PMC members and are documented on the project's main communications channel. Community opinions are taken into account but the PMC has the final word if needed.

OK: All decisions were made based on community vote.

CS30

Documented voting rules are used to build consensus when discussion is not sufficient.

OK: using the standard ASF voting process, http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

CS40

In Apache projects, vetoes are only valid for code commits and are justified by a technical explanation, as per the Apache voting rules defined in CS30.

OK

CS50

All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written form on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to-face or private discussions that affect the project are also documented on that channel.

OK: All discussions happen on public channels (mail/jira/review board). Any private discussion if any, has been brought back to one of the above channels.

Independence

IN10

The project is independent from any corporate or organizational influence.

OK: We have contributors from diverse organizations. Need to formally add PPMC?

IN20

Contributors act as themselves as opposed to representatives of a corporation or organization.

OK, no worrying signals here during incubation.