Noah expresses it the way I see it. The purpose of taking the interim step (which was intended to be very short) was to avoid the IPMC blocking any useful discussion through sheer size. Since Stratos is just a release away from graduation it would seem a waste for *this* community to discuss pTLP when it can no longer benefit from it (yes trademark search is needed but that's usually a couple of days work).
Of course, the speed of graduation is indicative of the fact that this was an ideal candidate for pTLP so we have that as a useful data point to take back to the IPMC (especially if the first release from this project is approved by the IPMC without change). Having said all that, I am not a mentor and more importantly I am not an active member of the community. My only intention is to say I (personally) no longer have any expectations with respect to the pTLP experiment within this project. It's up to the community first and mentors second to decide which path to take. Ross Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Senior Technology Evangelist Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation On 11 August 2013 19:10, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > My original understanding was that the podling would start as a pTLP. That > "pTLP" was a category of podling, and graduating would be the point where > we remove the "p". It does seem a little strange to go from podling -> pTLP > -> TLP. I think we started out this way to expedite getting started with > Stratos. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Might be missing/forgetting context.) > But perhaps for the next attempt, we go straight to pTLP? > > > On 8 August 2013 09:32, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Heh, well that wasn't quite the response i was expecting. >> >> From all the previous discussions around pTLPs we know there are some who >> really don't like the idea, i don't want this to turn into another big >> argument so I've been trying to think of ways this could happen with >> minimum of fuss. In the email at the start of this thread a suggestion was >> "propose an interim step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a >> podling, move to pTLP when certain criteria are met". I like that, but one >> problem is there is some baggage around the word "pTLP". >> >> A problem with starting the pTLP experiment from a podling is always >> going to be whats the difference between becoming a pTLP or just >> graduating, so a better understanding of that will be helpful (for me >> anyway) - is there something that has been done already since Stratos has >> been a podling that now means a pTLP makes less sense? One of those things >> might be the trademark search, but thats not yet been done for Stratos. >> >> Doing a release is being discussed but thats one of the more problematic >> activities while in the Incubator and can potentially drag on and on, so >> finding a way out before that would be good. Either via a pTLP or just >> trying for graduation and arguing that the high number of existing ASF >> people involved means the release will still be properly vetted even >> outside of the Incubator. But again that just brings me back to whats the >> difference to becoming a pTLP or just graduating? >> >> ...ant >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> The whole point of using Stratos as a test case for the probationary TLP >>> idea was to provide a vehicle for those who felt this was viable route to >>> incubation to demonstrate how it would work. Specifically it was intended >>> to be an opportunity to start to answer the concerns that I, and others, >>> raised about skipping the IPMC altogether. >>> >>> However, as Ant and Suresh point out, in the more than six weeks since I >>> summarized the discussions during the proposal phase the Stratos project >>> has done almost all it needs to graduate. >>> >>> I agree with Ant that at this point it makes more sense for mentors to >>> spend their time finishing incubation and graduate the project as a >>> standard podling. >>> >>> Chris and anyone else who support the pTLP idea can take the outline >>> process I pulled together from our earlier discussions (summarized at the >>> start of this thread) and apply them to some other project as their time >>> allows. It is too late to do it here. Stratos should not have to go through >>> the pain of defining a new process unless it brings benefit to the project >>> itself. >>> >>> Ross >>> >>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >>> Senior Technology Evangelist >>> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. >>> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 August 2013 13:16, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > 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. >>>> > >>>> > Ok lets do it here then. >>>> > >>>> > One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be >>>> the differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating. >>>> > >>>> > Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements >>>> are documented here: >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements >>>> > >>>> > With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF >>>> committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for >>>> automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is >>>> left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be >>>> checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go >>>> through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats >>>> done then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the >>>> board. >>>> > >>>> > I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a >>>> goal of Stratos here? >>>> > >>>> > …ant >>>> >>>> Hi Ant, >>>> >>>> This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am >>>> seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with >>>> Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a >>>> wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into >>>> graduation, which I agree is only few steps away. >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing >>>> lot of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and >>>> jira. Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking >>>> forward to see the progress: getting a release right with properly >>>> formulated license and notice files (especially for convenience binaries >>>> which bundle third party dependencies) and see working progress in removing >>>> dependence on ws02 repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are >>>> not coming from maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid. >>>> Essentially the parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and >>>> remove all the repos here. >>>> >>>> Suresh >>>> >>>> [1] - >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater > >
