=> The team discussed feedback from the community regarding clarity around the incubation process. For example, incorporating feedback from author. The team decided to learn more individually & discuss potential changes to the process next meeting
=> Package maturity review:
AynscHTTPClient - move to Graduated
Metrics API - move to Incubating
Postgres - move to Incubating
Redis - stay in Sandbox
APNS - move to Incubating
Statsd - stay in Sandbox
Promethous - stay in Sandbox
gRPC Swift - stay in Sandbox
SwiftCrypto - move to Incubating
A bit different since API is tied Apple / CryptoKit, we may want to reconsider an exception on next review if no 2nd organization steps up
OpenAPIKit - stay in Sandbox
AWS Lambda - stay at Sandbox
Backtrace - stay at Incubating (to be solved at language level)
Is it planned to have another maturity review soon? IIRC this is the last time it happened, so we're almost in 9 months from the last review.
One thing I'd like to request going forward: if a package is determined to not be promoted to a higher level, or even regress a level, that a working group note on why be provided so the maintainer(s) can work on that feedback.
The subject of a re-review came up in our last meeting, and we are planning to do another round very soon! Per the process documentation we are supposed to do this every 6 months so apologies for the delay.
And yes, we can/should provide transparency around the decisions to maintainers. We make decisions based on the incubation process criteria for each level, so generally if a package was not promoted it's because one or more criteria for the next level were not met, but it might not be obvious in many cases which of the criteria those were.
