On 4 April 2013 08:46, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies < > bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> ...Chris proposes that this > >>> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in > >>> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard > >>> from so far has been less than enthusiastic... > >> > >> That's my case, and I'm not interested in arguing this much more - > >> deconstructing the Incubator PMC does not look like a good idea to me, > >> both as a board member and as an ASF member. > > > > I am interested in graduating podlings into TLPs when ready. I think the > incubator is an excellent place that has done tremendous efforts in > fulfilling the mission of the ASF - software for the public good. > > > > It pains me to continue to read Chris's continual efforts to disband. It > is wearying and demotivating. > > Chris is jumping towards the end result. Don't get upset by that. The > simpler answer: *try* his new approach on a singular podling basis. > That can run in parallel to the Incubator. > > The Board can easily absorb one "special incubation" project. There is > an entirely separate discussion of what that really means, how much > Board-offloading is performed, what kinds of mentoring/input is > provided, etc. But the short answer is that we can run trials > *without* dismantling the Incubator. >
I'm all for such tests. If it were not for this oversight role of the IPMC then Chris' plan would be a fine one. However, it seems that almost every month the board looks at an issue in the IPMC reports and says "that's an IPMC issue, they seem to be handling it well so lets move on". Without the IPMC those conversations would be different. A single test of a single project would not highlight this. Having said that, here's an idea that builds on your proposal. There is already the opportunity to name the board as the sponsoring organisation. Why not say "where the board is willing to sponsor the project it can go straight to TLP" (e.g. exactly as Apache Steve did). This would allow a larger scale experiment around Chris' proposal but provides the opportunity for the board to control how much of the oversight role is pushed towards it and how much remains with the IPMC. Ross > > Consider it. > > Cheers, > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
