On 13 June 2013 14:12, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > >> On 13 June 2013 04:56, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> So here's a thought... >> >> ... >> >>>> I would therefore like to propose that we use Apache Stratos as a test >>>> case for the "probationary TLP" idea. I've already talked to Chris >>>> (who is driving the deconstruct the IPMC case) and Ant (who is less >>>> keen on dismantling the IPMC but wants to see how a probationary TLP >>>> model will play out). Both have agreed to help with this experiment if >>>> the IPMC and the Board wish it to proceed. I have not, however, >>>> discussed it with all the initial comitters or even mentors - I'm >>>> expecting them to speak up now. >> >> ... >> >>>> So, what do you think? >>> >>> I don't see the need to force Stratos through the Incubator given the >>> current proposed membership. Some points: >>> Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the board? I >>> think it should be the IPMC. >> >> I think we should come up with a concrete plan then go to the board. >> If the board is OK with taking it on then it should be board as this >> will be closer to Chris' defined end goal. >> >> In either case I undertake, as I noted in my original mail, to be the >> one that steps up to fix things if it all goes wrong. That's true >> whether it is IPMC or Board. > > I guess the details of how this governance will work, what are the roles, and > who will fill them, will need to be ironed out.
Yes. Of course in this case I'm proposing a period as a podling to give us time to iron those details out. However, here's my starting suggestion: This is just a TLP so we need to identify is committers, PMC, PMC chair. My starting suggestion is: - commiters (see proposal) - PMC members (I suggest initial membership is the mentors, the mentors seek to vote initial committers into the PMC as quickly as possible) - PMC chair (I would suggest the chair is the Champion until the PMC is confident enough to elect one from their own ranks - should be done ASAP, but certainly before graduation) >>> What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins? >> >> That needs to be defined. Given the fact the next board meeting is >> only a week away I suggest we first make this a podling to allow us to >> start the project here at the ASF. We can then work with the various >> committees to work out what the right set-up process is (i.e. don't >> set up as a podling, set up as a pTLP). We can then shoot for >> submitting a board resolution next month. >> >> I have already made it clear to the proposers of the project that >> taking this route will result in a slightly longer set-up period >> (because of the need to define new policies along the way). They are >> comfortable trading slower set-up for potentially faster graduation. > > It would probably be good to be clear on what are the exact characteristics > that make this podling pTLP worthy for the future. For example, the number > of ASF veterans in its ranks. The board expects a TLP to be able to make releases. That requires 3 +1 votes. That implies 3 initial PMC members. According to my starting proposal above this means 3 mentors minimum. This in turn matches what has come to be common practice in the IPMC. >> So to recap the proposed timeline: >> >> - IPMC votes on accepting the podling with the intention of moving it to a >> pTLP >> - mentors (with Chris' assistance) guide project committers in working >> with the various committees to define incubation/probation process >> - submit a board resolution in July to create the pTLP >> - if project is not ready to do so this can be delayed until August >> - If the board are unhappy with the project then I am called in to >> clear up the mess I made >> - If the board are happy with progress submit a resolution to become a >> TLP in <12 months (target 6 months) > > +1 > > Though I wouldn't put a date on TLP; keep things simple. We don't for > podlings and since the pTLP will be filled with trustworthy ASF members we > can trust they will do the right thing. Yes, I did wonder about that when I was writing this. I kept adding and removing it. I would like a date in there as targets are always something to aim for. The fact we don't have such a target for podlings is one of the items that some people suggest needs fixing. That said, the board is sensible enough to give a pTLP longer than the target if it is clear things are moving in the right direction. I would suggest we keep the date but make sure it is only a guideline. Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
