This is an assessment of the ServiceComb 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
Status of this document
All open items are updated with the latest status.
Maturity model assessment
Mentors and community members are encouraged to contribute to this page and comment on it, the following table summarizes project’s self-assessment against the Apache Maturity Model.
The project produces Open Source software, for distribution to the public at no charge.
YES. The project source code is licensed under the Apache License, version 2.0.
The project's code is easily discoverable and publicly accessible.
The code can be built in a reproducible way using widely available standard tools.
servicecomb-java-chassis: The build uses Apache Maven, and uses travis as the continuous integration tool, please find the how to build for more information.
servicecomb-service-center: The build uses standard go tool (gvt and go build), and uses travis as the continuous integration service. Please check out how to build for more information.
servicecomb-saga : The build uses Apache Maven, and continuous integration is used, please find the how to build for more information.
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.
Using Git for source code, document, and website. All the repositories at Github, releases are cut from that repository. All releases are tagged.
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.
YES. The project uses the git repository, managed by Apache Infra, ensuring provenance of each line of code to a committer. Third party contributions are accepted in accordance with the code submit guide only.
Licenses and Copyright
The code is released under the Apache License, version 2.0.
Libraries that are mandatory dependencies of the project's code do not create more restrictions than the Apache License does., 
The list of mandatory dependencies have been reviewed to contain approved licenses only. See below third party dependencies.
The libraries mentioned in LC20 are available as Open Source software.
All mandatory dependencies are available as open source software. See below.
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.
The project uses a repository managed by Apache Gitbox -- write access requires an Apache account, which requires an ICLA on file.
The copyright ownership of everything that the project produces is clearly defined and documented.
All files in the source repository have appropriate headers (see below).
Even further, Software Grant Agreements for the initial donations and Corporate CLAs have been filed.
Releases consist of source code, distributed using standard and open archive formats that are expected to stay readable in the long term.
Releases are approved by the project's PMC (see CS10), in order to make them an act of the Foundation.
YES. All incubating releases have been unanimously approved by the ServiceComb community and the Incubator, all with at least 3 (P)PMC votes.
Releases are signed and/or distributed along with digests that can be reliably used to validate the downloaded archives.
Convenience binaries can be distributed alongside source code but they are not Apache Releases -- they are just a convenience provided with no guarantee.
The release process is documented and repeatable to the extent that someone new to the project is able to independently generate the complete set of artifacts required for a release.
YES. Release guide is available describing the entire process. The ServiceComb releases have been performed by two different release manager.
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.
YES. The project records all bugs in the Apache’s JIRA issue tracker.
The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
YES. Security issues are treated with the highest priority, according to the CVE/Security Advisory procedure.
The project provides a well-documented channel to report security issues, along with a documented way of responding to them.
YES. Website provides a security page: http://servicecomb.incubator.apache.org/security/
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.
YES. Each release contains a “What’s new” on the website containing the release notes (extracted for Jira). The project aims to make no backward incompatible changes within a given major version.
The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely manner.
YES. The project has resolved 660+ issues during incubation.
The project has a well-known homepage that points to all the information required to operate according to this maturity model.
YES. The project website has a description of the project with technical details, how to contribute, team.
The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
YES. It’s part of the contribution guide and the current committers are really keen to welcome contributions.
Contributions include not only source code, but also documentation, constructive bug reports, constructive discussions, marketing and generally anything that adds value to the project.
YES. The contribution guide refers to non source code contribution, like documentation.
The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the project.
YES. The community has elected 5 new committers and 3 PPMC members during incubation, based on meritocracy.
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.
|YES. The criteria is documented in the contribution guide.|
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.
YES. The project works to build consensus. All votes have been unanimous so far.
The project strives to answer user questions in a timely manner.
YES. The project typically provides detailed answers to user questions within a few hours via dev@ mailing list.
The project maintains a public list of its contributors who have decision power -- the project's PMC (Project Management Committee) consists of those contributors.
YES. The website contains the list of committers and PPMC members.
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.
YES. The project has been making important decisions on the project mailing lists. Vast majority of, if not all, decisions have had a consensus without any PPMC action needed.
Documented voting rules are used to build consensus when discussion is not sufficient.
YES. The project uses the standard ASF voting rules. Voting rules are clearly stated before the voting starts for each individual vote.
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.
YES. The project hasn’t used a veto at any point and relies on robust code reviews.
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.
YES. The project has been making important decisions on the project mailing lists. Minor decisions may occasionally happen during code reviews, which are also asynchronous and in written form.
The project is independent from any corporate or organizational influence.
YES. The project team gathers people from different companies (Huawei, Talend, Stealth, Hyperpilot, Tencent, Syswin, RedHat, JingDong, PICC, Changhong, Cainiao). No company or organization has significantly more influence than any other. We can note a growth of the contributions coming from different committers.
Contributors act as themselves as opposed to representatives of a corporation or organization.
YES. The committers and contributors act on their own initiative without representing a corporation or organization.