I agree with Greg. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 1:33 AM To: Ant Elder <[email protected]> Cc: jpluser <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment >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 ><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 <tel:%2B94%2011%20763%209614>; cell: >+94 77 787 6880 <tel:%2B94%2077%20787%206880> | >>> +1 650 265 8311 <tel:%2B1%20650%20265%208311> >>> 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 <tel:%2B94%2011%20763%209614>; cell: >+94 77 787 6880 <tel:%2B94%2077%20787%206880> | +1 >> 650 265 8311 <tel:650%20265%208311> >> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ >> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > > >
