This guide was generated from real proposal discussion threads on the Apache Incubator mailing list and reflects the topics that were actually raised while proposals were being discussed.

Who This Guide Is For

This guide is intended for:

  • Project proposers
  • Incubator mentors
  • IPMC members

It is designed to support understanding of the kinds of questions and concerns that surfaced during proposal discussions prior to a proposal vote.

Unifying Principle

Proposal discussions mainly focused on whether a project was suitable for incubation at that time.

Purpose

This guide documents the specific themes that appeared in proposal discussion threads: what participants questioned, what they asked proposers to clarify, and which factors were considered relevant to proceeding with a proposal vote.

Guidance in this document complements but does not replace ASF policy.

1. Readiness to Enter Incubation

Proposal discussions often explored whether the project appeared ready to enter incubation.

In threads where readiness was questioned, the discussion commonly asked about:

  • whether there was evidence of active development
  • whether the project’s current maturity made incubation timely
  • whether incubation would add value at that stage

These questions were usually framed around timing and preparedness, rather than whether the idea was worth pursuing.

2. Evidence of Open Development

Many proposal discussions returned to what development looked like before the proposal.

Where this came up, participants asked for observable signals such as:

  • whether development had happened in public
  • whether decisions were recorded and visible
  • whether contributions extended beyond the original authors

These threads tended to focus on demonstrated practice rather than stated intent.

3. Community Composition and Diversity

Some proposal discussions examined who was involved and what the early community looked like.

When raised, questions focused on:

  • the number of active contributors
  • whether contributors came from more than one organisation
  • whether there were plausible signs of community growth

These were treated as indicators of sustainability and governance health.

4. Corporate Origin and Ongoing Influence

In proposals that appeared to originate inside a company, discussion sometimes focused on independence and control.

Where these concerns were raised, participants asked about:

  • the originating company’s role and expectations
  • whether control looked concentrated
  • how independence would be demonstrated in incubation

These topics were often framed as governance and perception risks to be managed early.

5. Mentor Availability and Suitability

A number of proposal discussions included explicit focus on mentors.

Where mentor coverage was discussed, topics included:

  • whether mentors were identified
  • whether availability seemed sufficient for the expected workload
  • whether the proposed mentors appeared to be a good fit for the podling

Mentor coverage can be treated as part of practical readiness to proceed.

6. Project Scope and Definition

Proposal discussions frequently asked proposers to tighten or clarify the scope.

When scope questions were raised, the discussion often focused on:

  • what the project did (and did not do)
  • boundaries of responsibility
  • potential overlap with existing ASF projects

These questions typically sought a clearer definition, not a technical review of quality.

7. Naming, Branding, and Trademark Questions at Proposal Time

Some proposal discussions surfaced naming and trademark questions early.

Where raised, topics included:

  • who owned the proposed name
  • whether conflicts might exist
  • whether a rename would be needed before moving forward

These were usually handled as entry conditions rather than something deferred until later.

8. Alignment with ASF and Incubator Purpose

In some threads, participants discussed whether the project belonged in the ASF and whether incubation was the right path.

Where this occurred, questions sometimes touched on:

  • alignment with ASF goals and expectations
  • whether the Incubator was the appropriate entry point
  • whether another venue or path might be a better fit

These discussions were generally framed in terms of fit and purpose rather than technical merit.

9. Procedural Clarification During Proposal Discussion

A smaller set of proposal discussions focused mainly on process.

Where this happened, topics included:

  • what information belonged in the proposal
  • how discussion related to a future vote
  • what the next steps in the proposal process looked like

These threads tended not to raise substantive readiness concerns.

10. Champion and Pre-Proposal Entry Questions

Some discussions occurred before a full proposal was ready, or alongside early attempts to enter the process.

Where these appeared, topics included:

  • requests for an ASF champion to help sponsor a proposal
  • early questions about whether an idea was suitable before writing a full proposal
  • whether mentors or champions were likely to be available to proceed

These threads often centred on whether a proposal could be brought forward in practice.

11. Key Takeaways for Proposers, Mentors, and the IPMC

  • Proposal discussion often centred on readiness and timing
  • Threads frequently looked for evidence of open development and visible decision-making
  • Community composition and independence were discussed explicitly in some proposals
  • Mentor coverage was raised as a practical readiness factor
  • Scope clarity and overlap questions commonly appeared
  • Naming and trademark questions sometimes need resolution before incubation
  • Fit with the ASF and Incubator purpose was part of some discussions
  • Process-only clarification occurred, but was not the dominant pattern
  • Pre-proposal threads sometimes focused on finding a champion and whether the proposal could proceed
  • No labels