Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 28 Mar 2013 14:04, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > Hi Ross, > > On 3/27/13 11:33 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > > >On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, "Greg Reddin" <gred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler > >> <rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote: > >> > >> > Perhaps it would make sense to see how the > >> > model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here: > >> > > >> > >> ... [snip] ... > >> > >> > >> > Why can't the IPMC work like that? Well, to a large extent it does. > >>Here > >> > are the same items expressed from the perspective of the IPMC and its > >> > relationship with PPMCs. > >> > > >> > >> Your proposal is not terribly different from proposals like what Chris > >> floated a year or so ago. Yours adds a layer of entities. Chris' > >>removes a > >> layer. > > > >I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board legally > >responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces it > >with an oversight body, but how does that scale? > > Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my > Incubator > deconstruction proposal [1]. In fact, it does not make the board legally > responsible > in any different way than the board is currently responsible for its > plethora of > TLPs -- IOW, it doesn't change a thing. It basically suggests that > incoming projects > can simply fast track to (t)LPs from the get go, so long as they have >= 3 > ASF members > present to help execute and manage the Incubator "process" which still > exists in > my proposed deconstruction.
My point is that all the oversight currently provided by the IPMC would have to be provided by the board. We already know that having three mentors does not guarantee adequate support for podlings. Ross > > IOW, my proposal recognized that the IPMC model is broken, and that the > 100s of > e-mails and threads that constantly go on are better spent doing actual > work. It > also recognized that the work done by the Incubator has been fantastic > over the > years. So much so, that having a specific "committee" to manage/steward > execution > of its processes and procedures no longer is needed. In fact, it's that > super > committee that stands in the way of progress in current days, rather than > the way > that it used to enable progress. > > My proposal involves these steps: > > 1. Move the Incubator process/policy/documentation, etc., to ComDev > <http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ComDev> - I agree with gstein on this. I > think it could be maintained by the ASF community folks there, and updated > over time. But it's not vastly or rapidly changing really anymore. > > 2. Discharge the Incubator PMC and the role of Incubator VP -- pat > everyone on the back, go have a beer, watch the big game together, > whatever. Call it a success, not a failure. > 3. Suggest at the board level that an Incubation "process" still exists at > Apache, in the same way that it exists today. New projects write a > proposal, the proposal is VOTEd on by the board at the board's next > monthly meeting, and those that cannot be are QUEUED for the next meeting, > or VOTEd on during out of board inbetween time on board@. Refer those > wanting to "Incubate" at Apache to the existing Incubator documentation > maintained by the ComDev <http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ComDev> > community. Tell them to ask questions there, about the process, about what > to do, or if ideas make sense. But not to VOTE on whether they are > accepted or not. > > 4. Require every podling to have at least 3 ASF members on it, similar to > the current Incubator process. > 5. Operate podlings exactly the same as a TLP. There is a chair. There is > a committee. Committee members have binding VOTEs on releases. > > Pretty simple. 5 steps. > > Anyhoo, yeah, happy to clarify further, though I must say I have zero hope > or feeling > that I'm going to be able to keep up with all these e-mails. Yours was > honestly the first > one I flagged in days since I saw Greg R's mention of my proposal and your > response to it. > > > Take care. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > > > > >Mine simply proposes a way to break the occasional deadlocks in the IPMC > >by > >using an existing, but informal, layer - shepherds. Nothing else changes. > >The IPMC is not broken, it just has growing pains. > > > >Ross > > > >Chris' proposal is essentially that Incubating projects become PMCs > >> instead of PPMCs. IIRC, his proposal still incorporated mentoring and > >> oversight to ensure that incubating projects are operating according to > >> Apache principles. Perhaps there's a model where incubating PMCs report > >> directly to the board, as with Chris' proposal, but with a "dotted-line" > >> reporting structure to a mentoring body. This mentoring body would be > >> responsible for vetting releases and new committers as the IPMC does > >>now. > >> But its role would be more of a guiding role than an oversight role. > >> > >> The podlings I've participated in would not have suffered from such a > >> model. Flex, for example, had a board member and 2 ASF members as > >>mentors. > >> The IPMC did not have to provide much insight beyond what we provided. > >> > >> The Incubator provides the following benefits to incubating projects: > >> > >> * mentoring on ASF principles and procedures > >> * vetting of releases > >> * help growing community > >> * a temporary community while podling community develops > >> > >> It seems to me that a model like what Chris has proposed or what I am > >> proposing could still provide all those benefits without the bureaucracy > >of > >> a super-IPMC. > >> > >> Greg > > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
