Hi,
The recent MCP discussed obtaining most of the data needed to create a draft
report for a project.
What would people think about populating the incubator report with a draft
report along these lines?
Here’s one I generated for Hamilton (I’ve not edited this in any way). I know
the Hamilton report will be different from this, but as you can see, it can
generate useful information in a few minutes.
Apache Hamilton (Incubating) -- May 2026 Report
Hamilton is a lightweight in-process framework to define, execute, and observe
directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that express data transformations. In Hamilton,
one can express complex DAGs of transformations, e.g. from dataframe
transformations (using pandas, polars, PySpark), machine learning pipelines,
through to regular software engineering API request and LLM API based
workflows. Observability hooks are built into the framework. The Hamilton UI is
a self-hostable service to capture observability output from workflow runs.
Hamilton has been incubating since 12 April 2025.
Three most important unfinished issues to address before graduating:
Release cadence for the core package. The last ASF-approved source release on
dist.apache.org is 1.89.0-incubating (October 2025). Vote threads are currently
open for sdk, ui, lsp, and contrib components, but a new ASF release of the
core hamilton package is overdue. The project should complete at least one
further approved release before graduation.
PyPI package naming and provenance. The sf-hamilton package on PyPI (version
1.90.0) does not carry the ALv2 license field or an Incubator disclaimer in its
project description. It is also unclear whether all versions published to
sf-hamilton and apache-hamilton were produced solely from IPMC-approved ASF
releases; this should be confirmed and documented before graduation.
Mentor engagement. The average mentor sign-off rate over the past 12 months is
1.6 per report, which is below the level expected for consistent oversight.
Mentors should confirm they are actively reviewing each report before
graduation discussions proceed.
Are there any issues that the IPMC or ASF Board need to be aware of?
No.
How has the community developed since the last report?
Development activity has increased over the reporting window. Over the past
three months the project recorded 128 commits from 16 unique committers,
compared with 257 commits from 27 committers over the full 12-month window --
indicating that activity is concentrated in a smaller group recently but has
not dropped off. The bus factor (50th percentile) has held at 2 across all
windows, meaning the project remains dependent on a small core of contributors;
the 75th percentile is 3-4, which is an improvement over the year.
New contributor attraction remains healthy: 12 new contributors appeared in the
last three months, consistent with the 12-month trend of 21. Mailing list
participation on dev@ has been moderate: around 40 messages from 9 unique
posters in the past three months. That is lower than the 12-month figure of 151
messages from 13 posters, suggesting the pace of general discussion has
softened outside of release activity.
A proposal for an Airflow Provider for Hamilton was posted to dev@ in April
2026 and attracted community discussion, which is a positive sign of broadening
ecosystem interest.
How has the project developed since the last report?
The project is actively preparing multiple component releases. As of the
reporting date, vote threads are open on dev@ for four sub-packages:
apache-hamilton-sdk 0.9.0, apache-hamilton-ui 0.0.18, apache-hamilton-lsp
0.2.0, and apache-hamilton-contrib 0.0.9 (all RC0, incubating). These votes
were opened on 26 May 2026.
The most recent completed ASF source release is 1.89.0-incubating, dated 11
October 2025, and is available at archive.apache.org with signature and SHA-512
checksum present. A GitHub release tagged
apache-hamilton-v1.90.0-incubating-RC0 was published on 25 April 2026 but is
flagged as a release candidate and has not yet completed the formal vote
process.
The apache-hamilton package on PyPI is at version 1.90.0 and includes an
Incubator disclaimer in its description. The older sf-hamilton package
redirects installers to apache-hamilton but its PyPI metadata does not include
the ALv2 license field or an Incubator disclaimer.
How would you assess the podling's maturity?
[ ] Initial setup
[ ] Working towards first release
[ ] Community building
[x] Nearing graduation
[ ] Other
Date of last release:
11 October 2025 (apache-hamilton-1.89.0-incubating). Multiple component release
votes (sdk, ui, lsp, contrib) are currently in progress as of 26 May 2026.
When were the last committers or PPMC members elected?
[PODLING TO COMPLETE]
Have your mentors been helpful and responsive?
Mentors are listed as Kevin Ratnasekera, Ayush Saxena, PJ Fanning, and Jarek
Potiuk. Mentor participation is visible on dev@ -- PJ Fanning and Jarek Potiuk
have engaged in recent release vote threads. The average mentor sign-off rate
over reported periods is 1.6, which is below the expected level; the PPMC
should confirm that all four mentors are reviewing reports regularly.
Is the PPMC managing the podling's brand / trademarks?
[PODLING TO COMPLETE]
This was the prompt to create it:
System prompt: Use only data retrieved from the Incubator MCP, MailMCP,
ReleaseMCP, Health MCP, and Policy MCP to populate the report. Do not use any
previous report content or training data. Follow these rules:
The reporting window runs from the first day of the month of the last report to
today. Determine this from the podling's reporting schedule retrieved in step 0.
Do not include raw statistics as standalone facts. Instead interpret them as
trends by comparing across available time windows (3m, 6m, 12m). Note whether
activity is growing, stable, or declining in plain language.
Only include a statistic directly if it is meaningful on its own, such as the
number of releases, a specific release version, or a release vote in progress.
Surface health concerns in the issues section -- such as declining reviewer
diversity, concentration of commit activity, or dropping mailing list
engagement -- rather than leaving it blank.
The "Are there any issues that the IPMC or ASF Board need to be aware of?"
section is for issues that require board-level attention -- such as legal
concerns, governance breakdowns, or matters the IPMC cannot resolve alone.
Routine release activity, compliance housekeeping, and community health watch
items belong in other sections. If there are no board-level issues, write "No."
Only call the Policy MCP if ReleaseMCP or Health MCP identifies a potential
compliance concern. If called, reference the relevant policy in the issues
section.
For any section the tools cannot populate, write [PODLING TO COMPLETE] on its
own line.
Do not copy forward language from any previous report.
Write in plain, concise English suitable for an international audience. Avoid
jargon.
Output the completed report as a markdown document. User prompt: Draft the
Incubator board report for Apache {podling} (Incubating) using the following
steps:
Call the Incubator MCP to retrieve the podling's description, incubation start
date, and reporting schedule to determine the current reporting window start
date.
Call MailMCP to retrieve dev list activity since the start of the reporting
window, looking for release votes, discussion threads, and significant
proposals.
Call ReleaseMCP to retrieve current release artifact evidence including dist,
archive, PyPI, and GitHub.
Call the Health MCP to retrieve community health metrics across all available
time windows.
If ReleaseMCP or Health MCP identifies a potential compliance concern, call the
Policy MCP to confirm the relevant policy and reference it in the issues
section.
Synthesise the results into the standard Incubator report template below and
output as markdown. Template: markdown
## Apache {podling} (Incubating) -- {report month and year} Report
{description from Incubator MCP}
{podling} has been incubating since {start date from Incubator MCP}.
### Three most important unfinished issues to address before graduating:
### Are there any issues that the IPMC or ASF Board need to be aware of?
### How has the community developed since the last report?
### How has the project developed since the last report?
### How would you assess the podling's maturity?
- [ ] Initial setup
- [ ] Working towards first release
- [ ] Community building
- [ ] Nearing graduation
- [ ] Other
### Date of last release:
### When were the last committers or PPMC members elected?
### Have your mentors been helpful and responsive?
### Is the PPMC managing the podling's brand / trademarks?
And this is the list of MCP calls it made:
Here are all MCP tool calls made, in order:
podlings:reporting_schedule (name="Hamilton") -- retrieved Hamilton's reporting
group, cadence, and current report period to establish the reporting window.
ipmc:podling_brief (podling="Hamilton", brief_format="detailed") -- retrieved
incubation start date, mentor list, health summary, and key indicators
including commit counts, committer diversity, and active concerns.
ipmc:release_artifact_evidence (podling="Hamilton", github_project="hamilton",
include_platforms=true, pypi_packages=["sf-hamilton", "apache-hamilton"]) --
retrieved dist/archive artifact evidence, GitHub releases, PyPI package
metadata, Docker Hub checks, and Maven checks.
apache-health:compare_windows (podling="Hamilton", windows=["3m", "6m", "12m"])
-- retrieved community health metrics across all three windows for trend
comparison (commits, committers, authors, dev posters, PRs, releases, mentor
sign-offs, bus factor, reviewer diversity).
incubator-mail:recent_podling_mail (podling="hamilton", list_name="dev",
timespan="lte=3M", limit=20) -- retrieved recent dev@ activity including the
four active release vote threads (sdk, ui, lsp, contrib) and the Airflow
Provider proposal discussion.
podlings:get_podling (name="Hamilton") -- retrieved the full podling
description, champion, mentor names, and start date for inclusion in the report
header.
Kind Regards,
Justin
