Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> [...snip large thought...please check archives here to see it:
http://s.apache.org/S0i ....] >> >> Anyways I could type more but I think I've beat this horse to death. I appeal >> to you and to the rest of the board members reading this thread will consider >> my proposal. Thanks for reading. >> >> --Chris, who I'll note *does* care about the IPMC and *does* care a ton >> about Apache >> and the folks here and our hallowed status as an awesome open source >> organization. > > Giving this thread all due consideration, with its own subject; Thanks Bill. > > I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very > small > operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process > of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions. Some amount > of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee. I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is. > > Take "VP, Project Incubation" out of the role of judging incoming or > graduating > projects. Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in > as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or > graveyard > (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience). > > Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors. Make a choice between > including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors > promote > the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and > somewhat predictable flowchart. > > Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding > new > mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had > lost > their mentors. This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC > reset > on established projects. > > Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to > recommend > to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP. If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements above and think they jive with my proposal. > Why? Given > the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented > by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was > held, > and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have > done internal harm. Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals > and cast such votes. That's OK, they are still representative of the > membership. > If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently > but > emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the > proposed project. Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than served their purpose. > > In short, all incoming projects continue into an "Incubation" phase as we all > understand it, subject to additional scrutiny and oversight by a collection > of mentors and additional scrutiny by the board, reflected in their monthly > and then quarterly report. A scorecard continues for the incubating projects > of the milestones they must reach to graduate into a full fledged project. +1. > And we can even continue to restrict them to an incubation.apache.org domain > until they reach that milestone. Meh, I don't think that matters, honestly. If they want to be newfoo.apache.org, who cares, so long as they are following the website and trademarks guidelines for what the website should say aka *large bold words* saying Incubation :) > > But they are plugged in from day one into the same array of services offered > by Board/Legal/Infrastructure/Press/Trademarks/ComDev/ConCom with mentors to > help them navigate. Beyond VP, Project Incubation, we will probably uncover > other obvious services that the ASF should provide as a VP or committee of > peers to nurture incoming podlings into successful, healthy projects. Yep, agreed with the above, minus the VP Incubation (or Incubator VP role), and associated committee. There's no need for it. > > Every previous restriction on incubating podlings has been eliminated over > the past 8 years. There is no reason to continue the incubator committee > as an ombudsman, when every issue that applies to each incubating podling > simultaneously applies to each established project. Yep, and there's no reason to continue the Incubator committee, period. Thanks for the comments BIll. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
