Hahah, we all need sleep? What?!! :)
Take care duder, we'll spent some cycles doing other emails while we let this sit. 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:11 AM To: general <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus) >Chris, > >The fundamental issue is that I don't agree the IPMC needs deconstructing. >I believe it finds it difficult to come to a decision when unusual >circumstance arises, but most of the time it does fine. > >I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find >sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will >scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a >typical >mentor, most of us need sleep. > >I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the >incubation >process is broken. Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems >of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or >that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in. >Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus >to >the board. Moving problems does not solve them. > >Ross > >Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity >On 29 Mar 2013 16:51, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" < >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > >> [Note subject line change for Benson] >> >> >> Hi Ross, >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> >> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM >> To: general <general@incubator.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus >> >> >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. >> >> Yeah I guess this is the crux. >> >> I respect your opinion, but honestly feel strongly for my own too :) >> No worries, such is life. >> >> >That is without the IPMC addressing issues >> >that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes >> >necessary. >> >> Well yeah that's the point. I've gone into details, ad nauseum. They are >> literally extrapolated on my proposal and in numerous email threads too. >> I've done the work to document them. >> >> > >> >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. >> >> Without knowing the specifics, saying that we differ I don't think is >> Constructive at least on my end. IOW, I don't think it's anything that a >> bar camp, with some >> good IPA wouldn't solve ^_^ >> >> > >> >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. >> >> Ross, if it's rarely the case, I wouldn't be here helping 6 podlings at >> the moment in the Incubator (and those podlings wouldn't have all come >>to >> me >> asking me directly to help mentor). I'm talking about 14 podlings over >> the last few years. Here you go I'll enumerate: >> >> ---graduated >> OODT >> Airavata >> SIS >> Gora >> Lucy >> Giraph >> >> cTAKES >> Any23 >> >> ---current >> HDT >> Mesos >> Tez >> Knox >> Climate >> Tajo >> >> >> >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?) >> >> The above is anecdotal -- the board has scaled from 90 projects a few >> years ago to >> 137 currently over that time. Based on that, I don't think any of the 3 >> above >> suggestions will happen. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> > >> >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 >> >> >> >>[..snip..] >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
