I don't suppose that I could convince folks to start a new thread for the topic, 'The Incubator is a FAIL', and leave this one to the patch for the decision process?
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote: > We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to > IPMC. The amount of work the board does on x podlings weach month is less > than the work they do on x TLPs. That is without the IPMC addressing issues > that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes > necessary. > > There are problems of efficiency, that is what I believe is the problem. > But as I said we need to agree to differ at this time. > > Where I differ from you is that not when each podling had 3 active and > engaged mentors, all would be good in those cases. That is rarely the case > though. Therefore your proposal means either a reduction in the number of > accepted projects (problem: how do we know which to accept), a reduction in > the quality of TLPs (problem: reduction in perceived quality of all ASF > brands), or a bigger oversight role for the board (problem: will the board > accept this?) > > For me the first option is the only outcome that can be considered. If that > is a desired change (it is not for me) then your proposal is great. For now > though the change I want is a more efficient IPMC and this is why we need > to agree to differ at least until more of the IPMC have a stomach for > radical change. > > Ross > > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity > On 29 Mar 2013 01:49, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" < > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > > Hey Ross, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > > Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus > > > > >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many > actions > > >each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded. > That > > >is why the IPMC submits a board report. > > > > What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1] outside > of > > what the board already does for PMCs? I count a total of 0 in the right > > hand > > column of my table. > > > > Being specific myself: > > > > 1. Directors review the IPMC report, and are charged (at least the > Director > > shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with > > reviewing > > the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion before > > about > > removing specific podling reports, and only leaving the summary -- this > > was nixed. > > Directors are still charged with reviewing podling individual reports, > > same as > > they are with actual project reports. Thus, if you say there are no more > > podlings, > > as I do in my proposal, please define, specifically, where the extra work > > is? > > > > 2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little > centralized > > authority. > > Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka! Fix it > > yourself, > > PMC! OK, so with that said, what's the problem then by saying, no more > > podlings, > > there are simply PMCs? New projects come in to the ASF via steps 3-5 in > my > > proposal -- > > through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of > > merit, community, etc, > > guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready, the > > board VOTEs > > on the incoming project(s). This is true today. Incubator "podlings" are > > *not officially > > endorsed projects of the ASF* until they are turned into TLPs by board > > resolution. > > Again, so what's changed? > > > > What's even more hilarious and illustrative of the guise towards > > decentralization > > is that there have been discussions within this very same thread that > > instead of > > telling the board there are problems with the Incubator, that we should > > "fix them ourselves" > > here. Hehe. Kind of a reflexive but powerful look in the mirror about the > > desire > > to move *away* from centralization. > > > > Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the goal > > of the ASF > > is for the PMCs to be self governing? The "Apache way" is intimated > > through tribal > > knowledge of its members. Activeness of a member (and 3 of them on a PMC) > > is something > > that the board is aware of, so these things will get caught at project > > creation, and/or > > through personnel additions incrementally. > > > > > > > >That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has > > >stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all this up > > >again. For now lets agree to differ. > > > > No problem -- I think we're closer than it seems, but yes, I'm fine with > > dropping it. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal > > > > > > > >Ross > > > > > > > > > > > >On 28 March 2013 16:19, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < > > >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > > > > >> Hey Ross, > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >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. > > >> > > >> I guess I would ask "what oversight"? There is no global IPMC > oversight. > > >> Ever since Joe's experiment, and even before, the podlings that get > > >>through > > >> the Incubator (and I've taken quite a few now, and recently, so I > think > > >>I > > >> can speak from a position of experience here within the last few > years), > > >> are the ones that have active mentors and *distributed*, not > > >>*centralized* > > >> oversight. > > >> > > >> IOW, I'm not seeing any IPMC oversight at the moment. I'm seeing good > > >> mentors, > > >> located in each podling, distributed, that get podlings through. Those > > >>that > > >> stall well they need help. Usually the help is debated endlessly, and > > >>not > > >> solved, > > >> or simply solved with more active/better mentors. > > >> > > >> So, that's my whole point. You either agree with me that there is no > > >>IPMC > > >> oversight at the moment (for years now), and that really podlings are > > >>TLPs > > >> (well the ones that graduate within a fixed set of time as Sam was > > >>trying > > >> to measure > > >> before, or simply point out that is) or you still believe that there > is > > >> oversight > > >> within the IPMC. I personally don't. That's why I wrote the proposal. > > >>And > > >> I think > > >> that's at least evident to me and more than a few others that that's > the > > >> problem here > > >> and that's why I don't think the Incubator should exist anymore in its > > >> current form > > >> and should be deconstructed :) > > >> > > >> Thanks for your comments and conversation and for listening. > > >> > > >> 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 > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > > >Programme Leader (Open Development) > > >OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
