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

OK  Of course, as it should be.

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

OK  Currently "Fork Eagle on Github" banner is riding on the pages' top-right corner, see https://eagle.incubator.apache.org/docs/. According to IPMC's advices, we are working on ticket EAGLE-380 to revise the document and make How-to-Contribute page contain all instructions for discovering the code and contribute.

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

OK  The build uses maven and continuous integration is used.

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  Using Git, main repository at https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-eagle.git, releases are cut from that repository.

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.

The code is released under the Apache License, version 2._0.

OK  LICENSE file has been accepted in release votes.

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

OK  The list of dependencies at https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/EagleProposal has been verified when entering incubation. The current dependency licenses (including build, runtime and optional dependencies) are found at https://github.com/apache/incubator-eagle/blob/master/LICENSE. Release reviews have not shown any incompatible licenses.

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

OK  See LC20.

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  All committers have iCLAs on file.

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

OK  Obvious for an ASF project.

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.

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 pass by the Incubator PMC.

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

OK  Verified in release votes.

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

NOT APPLY  The size of Eagle's binaries is too large (larger than 300MB) for either servers to hold or customers to download. So we make releases with only source-code packages.

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  Eagle has a long history of being a good citizen about quality.

The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.

OK See QU10.

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

OK: http://groovy-lang.org/ does include a "security" link to http://groovy-lang.org/security.html which in turns points tohttp://www.apache.org/security/.

The website also include the mandatory links listed at http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html#navigation

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, see QU10.

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

OK, response times on the users list and jira are good.

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

OK: http://groovy.apache.org/ redirects to http://groovy-lang.org/ for now. The plan for the future is to use the former for Groovy development topics, and the latter for its user community.

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

OK, the community is working well in this respect.

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, Groovy has elected some non-coding committers.

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

OK, Groovy has elected a few committers during incubation.

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.

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.

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

OK, see QU50.

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: will be at people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#groovy-pmc once the project graduates.

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, the Groovy team has been making and documenting decisions on its dev list during incubation.

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

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, vetoes haven’t been abused during incubation.

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, see CS20.

The project is independent from any corporate or organizational influence.

OK, no such influence has been detected during incubation.

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

OK, no worrying signals here during incubation.