Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the background. (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my mind, a probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the Board. And dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss before bringing an idea to the Board. On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be > discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't > subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't > be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at > least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past. > > ...ant > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm happy to drive the proposal .. can we do it on dev@? I'm not on the > > PPMC. > > > > If so, Ant, lets catch up a bit one of these so we can start a Wiki > > proposal. Maybe target August board meeting at this point? > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Ross Gardler < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> There needs to be a concrete proposal from this PPMC and its mentors, so > >> no we are not on track. > >> > >> However, Ant did mail me offlist a few days ago to let me know he's been > >> swamped but does plan to get to this soon. > >> > >> Of course the discussion doesn't need to be led by Ant. > >> > >> Ross > >> > >> Sent from my Windows Phone > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana > >> Sent: 7/20/2013 9:30 PM > >> To: dev > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment > >> > >> Looks like there was no follow-up to this. Ross are you still on track > to > >> put this forward? > >> > >> Sanjiva. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ross Gardler < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> During the proposal phase for the Stratos podling I floated the idea of > >>> the IPMC using the podling to experiment with a more streamlined > incubation > >>> process. > >>> > >>> It is not my intention to drive this experiment. Ant Elder expressed a > >>> desire to explore the idea during recent discussions among the IPMC. > Whilst > >>> we were drawing up the Stratos proposal I asked Ant if he would be > willing > >>> to lead the experiment. He agreed. > >>> > >>> In this mail I will summarize the relevant parts of the discussion > thread > >>> on the [email protected] list. The intention is to give > Ant a > >>> starting point for the discussions here. It's up to the Stratos > community to > >>> ensure the experiement does not limit the project in any way and up to > Ant > >>> to drive the experiment for the IPMC. Naturally, the IPMC mentors will > be a > >>> very important part of defining the model and feeding back on the > experiment > >>> to the IPMC. I'll be lad to help evaluate as an IPMC member too. > >>> > >>> Chris' original skeleton proposal is at [1]. This outlines who is > >>> responsible for what in the new model. I'll remind the team that the > board > >>> has not discussed the proposals here and a number of board members have > >>> expressed concern about it, while a couple are actively pushing for it. > >>> > >>> The following specific questions were raised during discussions. These > >>> will need to be addressed in any proposal. > >>> > >>> # Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the > board? > >>> > >>> This is perhaps the biggest potential area for pushback is moving > >>> oversight for the project to the board. Going to board certainly > bypasses > >>> the problem of the IPMC often getting in the way of efficient process > but it > >>> also removes the valuable input that some members of the IPMC often > provide. > >>> Furthermore, should there be a problem it means it is the board that > must > >>> fix the problem. Podling mentoring is not, traditionally, a role the > board > >>> has ever taken on (fixing broken communities is not the same as > mentoring > >>> fledgling communities). > >>> > >>> Note that one Director explicitly stated that he will vote -1 on any > >>> proposal that has a "podling" reporting directly to the board. This > doesn't > >>> mean it won't be approved by the board, but it does mean it will be > >>> rigorously discussed. > >>> > >>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins? > >>> > >>> We dodged this question in the discussion thread by saying we'd go to > >>> podling status first. I guess defining this is part of defining the > scope of > >>> the experiment. > >>> > >>> # What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in > >>> good graces? > >>> > >>> Here I suggested the criteria would be the same as a TLP. The problem > is > >>> understanding whether we have that documented anywhere. The IPMC has > >>> addiitonal requirements (e.g. keep the meta-data up-to-date) whilst the > >>> board has, for the last 12 months or so, been pushing to have TLPs > provide > >>> some of the same meta-data (e.g. last release date, last committer > addition, > >>> last PMC addition). > >>> > >>> I suggest trying to come up with using the same criteria for TLPs, > >>> podlings and pTLPs. Where podlings will have a lower set f expectations > >>> (i.e. no need to have voted in any committers yet, pTLPs have voted in > a > >>> committer in the last six months but may not have done an approved > release > >>> and TLPs should have a fairly regular flow of committers and > releases). Note > >>> these "metrics" ought not be fixed, they should be seen as guidelines. > A > >>> project with no recent releases that continues to report and answer > user > >>> queries may just be mature, for example. > >>> > >>> One measure can be the pTLP PMC membership. Initially it would be only > >>> the project mentors and champion. Over time active committers from the > >>> initial committer list are voted into the PMC (recognising merit). So > we > >>> then have a possible measure, if there are 3 members of the pTLP from > the > >>> initial committer list then there are now sufficient binding votes for > the > >>> project to operate as a TLP. > >>> > >>> While writing this I realised that we might want to propose an interim > >>> step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a podling, move to pTLP > when > >>> certain criteria are met (e.g. >3 active binding votes) and then TLP. > I've > >>> not thought this through, just an idea you might consider. > >>> > >>> Another commentator observed that "It would probably be good to be > clear > >>> on what are the exact characteristics that make this podling pTLP > worthy for > >>> the future. For example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks." - > a good > >>> observation. The danger here is creating an "us" and "them" > environment. > >>> Perhaps the podling -> pTLP -> TLP idea resolves this - not sure. > >>> > >>> # What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces? > >>> > >>> I don't see this as being any different from a TLP. For a TLP the board > >>> says "fix it", if it isn't fixed they clear the decks and invite the > >>> remaining PMC to fix it. If it still isn't fixed it gets axed. What > needs to > >>> be defined is who provides these "fix it" ultimatums and when. > >>> > >>> Please be *very* careful here. When we set up the IPMC we said the IPMC > >>> would do this - that's the main failure point now. It is mob rule. If > a pTLP > >>> reports to board then it's easy, but if reporting to the IPMC it is > harder. > >>> > >>> Note, a Director said " the Board will need a *definition* of > >>> probation. This is more than just a wiki page. I believe it needs to > >>> be a page laid down in www.a.o/dev/ that defines the constraints laid > >>> down upon a "pTLP"" I believe answering the above question will provide > >>> this. > >>> > >>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes? > >>> > >>> Here I don't see any reason for it to be different to podling > graduation > >>> (proven ability to be open to new community members, properly vetted > >>> release). > >>> > >>> # How do we maintain the "podling" brand? > >>> > >>> People are familiar with the concept of a podling. The press > understands > >>> the difference between a TLP and a podling. We must not lose this > >>> distinction. The Apache brand is valuable because of our high quality > bar. > >>> If we dilute that quality by allowing projects to claim they are > official > >>> before they understand what is required of an ASF project we run the > risk of > >>> damaging the brand for all projects. > >>> > >>> So there you go. I hope I've done a reasonable job of summarizing a 55+ > >>> mail thread. > >>> > >>> Good luck! > >>> > >>> Ross > >>> > >>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > >> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ > >> email: [email protected]; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880| > >> +1 650 265 8311 > >> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ > >> > >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ > > email: [email protected]; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880| +1 > > 650 265 8311 > > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ > > > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware >
