Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 (non-binding) ~ Indika On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports for podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of cases. I'll expand on that in Chris' thread. I'll note that in this thread I answered the question of who Stratos should report to with the board, but I'll also note I don't expect the board to provide mentoring. That is a key difference between what I am proposing for pTLP and the original deconstruction proposal. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: ... Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea. I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting. Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here... The Incubator gathers reports from all of its podlings. It reviews them, discusses some aspects with those podlings, and then it files a report with the ASF Board. Three paragraphs stating, Hey. No issues. Everything is going great. Community is good. Legal is good. kthxbai. Would that fly with the ASF Board? Not a chance. The simple fact is that the Board *does* want to see reports from podlings. Those podlings will (hopefully) become part of the Foundation one day. The Board is *keenly* interested in what is going on, and how those podlings are doing. If you suggest a model of a total black box. Where *no* podling information escapes from the Incubator to the Board. And then one day... *poof!!* ... a graduation resolution appears before the Board. Do you honestly think the Board would just sign off on that? Again: not a chance. What this really means is: the Board wants to review podlings' progress and operations. I don't see how it can be argued any other way. So if that is true, then why does the IPMC need to be a middle man? Why not provide those reports from the podling directly to the Board? And why not get the podling directly engaged with the actual operation of the Foundation? About how to report to the Board? About shepherds, watching for commentary in the agenda, about committing to that agenda!, and about paying attention to board@ and its operations. If we want to teach new communities about how the ASF works, then why the artificial operation of the Incubator? Why not place them directly in contact with the *real* ASF? By all measures, Apache Subversion would have been a pTLP when it arrived at the Incubator. But we integrated very well into the ASF because there were Members, Directors, and other long-term Apache people who could answer huh? what is a PMC Member? how does that map to our 'full committer' status? what are these reports? ... and more. The close attention, and the direct integration with the Foundation, worked as well as you could expect. The Incubator did not provide much value, beyond what the extent Members were already providing (recall that we easily had a half-dozen at the time; I don't know the count offhand, but it was well past any normal podling). The Incubator may not provide value to certain projects that reach the pTLP bar (again: some thumbs-up definition of that is needed!), but it is *very* much required for projects/communities that are not as familiar with how we like to do things here. In this concrete case of Stratos, I personally (and as a voting Director) have every confidence in trying the pTLP approach. I outlined some areas that I believe the Board needs before accepting a pTLP, and so I'm looking forward to this experiment. I think it will turn out well. I do think we may be setting up some communities for anger, when the Board chooses to *not* grant pTLP status and refers the community to the Incubator. I really don't have a good answer there, especially around the future/obvious direction of pTLP is only for the Old Boys Club and other insiders. Sigh. Can't be helped, I think. Anyhow. To the original point: pTLP reporting to the Board is practically speaking a no-brainer. Podlings generally report direct to the Board today, minus some intermediary stuff. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
That first sentence still doesn't parse, sorry ... I should have said I don't like the idea of the board taking responsibility. I have no problem with it receiving reports directly. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 07:55, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports for podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of cases. I'll expand on that in Chris' thread. I'll note that in this thread I answered the question of who Stratos should report to with the board, but I'll also note I don't expect the board to provide mentoring. That is a key difference between what I am proposing for pTLP and the original deconstruction proposal. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: ... Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea. I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting. Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here... The Incubator gathers reports from all of its podlings. It reviews them, discusses some aspects with those podlings, and then it files a report with the ASF Board. Three paragraphs stating, Hey. No issues. Everything is going great. Community is good. Legal is good. kthxbai. Would that fly with the ASF Board? Not a chance. The simple fact is that the Board *does* want to see reports from podlings. Those podlings will (hopefully) become part of the Foundation one day. The Board is *keenly* interested in what is going on, and how those podlings are doing. If you suggest a model of a total black box. Where *no* podling information escapes from the Incubator to the Board. And then one day... *poof!!* ... a graduation resolution appears before the Board. Do you honestly think the Board would just sign off on that? Again: not a chance. What this really means is: the Board wants to review podlings' progress and operations. I don't see how it can be argued any other way. So if that is true, then why does the IPMC need to be a middle man? Why not provide those reports from the podling directly to the Board? And why not get the podling directly engaged with the actual operation of the Foundation? About how to report to the Board? About shepherds, watching for commentary in the agenda, about committing to that agenda!, and about paying attention to board@ and its operations. If we want to teach new communities about how the ASF works, then why the artificial operation of the Incubator? Why not place them directly in contact with the *real* ASF? By all measures, Apache Subversion would have been a pTLP when it arrived at the Incubator. But we integrated very well into the ASF because there were Members, Directors, and other long-term Apache people who could answer huh? what is a PMC Member? how does that map to our 'full committer' status? what are these reports? ... and more. The close attention, and the direct integration with the Foundation, worked as well as you could expect. The Incubator did not provide much value, beyond what the extent Members were already providing (recall that we easily had a half-dozen at the time; I don't know the count offhand, but it was well past any normal podling). The Incubator may not provide value to certain projects that reach the pTLP bar (again: some thumbs-up definition of that is needed!), but it is *very* much required for projects/communities that are not as familiar with how we like to do things here. In this concrete case of Stratos, I personally (and as a voting Director) have every confidence in trying the pTLP approach. I outlined some areas that I believe the Board needs before accepting a pTLP, and so I'm looking forward to this experiment. I think it will turn out well. I do think we may be setting up some communities for anger, when the Board chooses to *not* grant pTLP status and refers the community to the Incubator. I really don't have a good answer there, especially around the future/obvious direction of pTLP is only for the Old Boys Club and other insiders. Sigh. Can't be helped, I think. Anyhow. To the original point: pTLP reporting to the Board is practically speaking a no-brainer. Podlings generally report direct to the Board today, minus some intermediary stuff. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 (binding) Paul On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Indika Kumara indika.k...@gmail.comwrote: +1 (non-binding) ~ Indika On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2 Apache Synapse PMC Chair OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org p...@wso2.com Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 (non-binding) thanks On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Paul Fremantle pzf...@gmail.com wrote: +1 (binding) Paul On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Indika Kumara indika.k...@gmail.com wrote: +1 (non-binding) ~ Indika On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2 Apache Synapse PMC Chair OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org p...@wso2.com Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com -- Lakmal Warusawithana Software Architect; WSO2 Inc. Mobile : +94714289692
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
On Jun 14, 2013 11:50 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) +1 (binding) Ate It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. +1 (binding) Best Regards, Nandana -- Best Regards, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya
Re: [DISCUSS] Merits of pTLP idea
On 14 June 2013 18:11, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: 2. It's harder to discharge a pTLP rather than a podling Jim, Ross: It's going to be harder to pick up the pieces if pTLPs are unsuccessful, than it would be for a podling. I think that is a misrepresentation of what has been said. It's not about picking up the pieces it's about providing adequate mentoring to give a project fighting chance. Picking up the pieces should a project fail is easy. Preventing a project from unnecessarily failure is less easy. I estimate I've worked with something like 50 new project teams over the years. More than half of them outside the ASF. In my experience the success or failure of a project (assuming a good engineering team and a genuinely useful product) is less to do with the people doing the development work and more to do with the guidance those smart people get at key decision points relating to the open source model. So it's not about picking up the pieces it's about spotting when the process is failing early enough to fix it and then having the right vehicle to provide support. In the majority of cases the mentoring model we have is perfect. It works far more than it fails. When it fails the problem is ISSUE 01 coupled with 03 (all other issues are symptoms of those issues in my opinion). pTLP can help address this but not, in my opinion, when coupled to your larger dismantling proposal. I want to explore pTLP as part of the existing incubation process, not as a replacement for it. Precisely how that will work requires some experimentation - hence the Stratos proposal. 3. There isn't any benefit to implementing pTLPs Jim: I see no real benefit to implementing pTLPs. Chris: The benefits would immediately be that they don't have to go in front of a 170+ person committee to get a decision. Chris, podlings that don't hit ISSUE 01 (that's the majority) don't have to go to the IPMC now. Why are you claiming they do? The process is one of *notification* that a vote has been conducted not one of review. If mentors allow the IPMC to get in the way that's a failing of the mentors not the process. In the 18+ projects I've mentored at the ASF we have only ever once had to request an IPMC member vote. Once. Even then it was painless because we had a brilliant mentor who had already addressed all the issues in the release (not me I hasten to add - thanks Ate). Sometimes it has taken some robust protection of the podling here in the IPMC lists (take a look at some of my posts relating to AOO for example), but that's part of the job of a mentor in my opinion. In my proposed experiment I want to take the advantages of the pTLP (specifically it clearly defines the role of the mentors and encourages faster empowerment of the podling committers and thus reduces the potential for ISSUE 01 (mentor atrophy) coming into play and thus ensuring ISSUE 03 (too many cooks) is no longer valid. I am not interested in using the pTLP concept to solve problems that I do not believe exist, like the one you discuss above. Other benefits would also be in release VOTEs where those doing the releases could have their VOTEs be binding (which they will anyways) As a member of the foundation I only want people who have proven their ability to do the appropriate due diligence on releases to take on that responsibility. It takes time to understand both the process and the need for it. This is not a trivial thing, it is the sole reason why the ASF is trusted and thus why our software is so important. Do not underestimate this. Whilst academic institutions can afford to be somewhat lax in their management of IP (yes I have extensive experience of this) large corporations with bank balances and shareholders cannot. It would be irresponsible of the ASF membership to allow any action which dilutes the the IP management processes. As a Member I will insist that the Board refrains from taking actions such as automatically making podling initial committers full voting PMC members (although I very much doubt I'll need to express this opinion to the Board). The board isn't responsible -- the pTLP ASF members are. That statement is only true where ISSUE 01 (mentor atrophy) does not come into play. Regardless of whether you agree with this or not I suggest this is not relevant to the pTLP experiment I am proposing. It is not relevant because I am not coupling the proposal to the dismantling of the IPMC. Should ISSUE 01 come into play it is the IPMC that will be required to provide the necessary support (and I have already stated I will take that responsibility for the IPMC). I request that when we discuss the merits of the pTLP idea in the context of Stratos we focus on the pTLP as a part of the existing incubation project *not* as part of the dismantling proposal. If someone else wants to argue for pTLP as part of the dismantling then that's fine. But lets take incremental steps and not let this
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
I proposed this a year or so ago. It was fairly soundly rejected for a number of reasons, the two I recall (because I felt they had significant merit) were: a) adds additional hierarchy b) impossible to decide where a project best fits These two things together give the potential for silos. I don't think we discussed models for solving the silo problem. Ross On 14 June 2013 23:58, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: Apologies if this horse has been beaten already, but... have we discussed the concept of splitting incubator operations into a handful of separate groups, based on technology areas? I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and provide community best practice guidance. But then separate mailing lists/groups would provide actual oversight of podlings (incoming, mentoring, graduating). These would be based on rough technology areas: java, hadoop, servers, UI, whatever. That way, people could participate in governance oversight and mentoring in focus areas that they care about, and not have to immediately deal with the many other podlings that are not related in terms of technology/interest areas. Obviously there's a lot about coordinating suggested feedback on policies, best practices, etc. between the groups and the core IPMC/ComDev., but it would (hopefully) result in most of the groups being much quieter, and more focused. - Shane, off to make a GT - 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
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 (non-binding) -Sebastien On Jun 15, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya nandana@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. +1 (binding) Best Regards, Nandana -- Best Regards, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 (non-binding) thanks, Thilina On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.comwrote: +1 (non-binding) -Sebastien On Jun 15, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya nandana@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. +1 (binding) Best Regards, Nandana -- Best Regards, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~tgunarat/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/thilina http://thilina.gunarathne.org
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
On 6/14/2013 8:25 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: ... Do we really want jakarta@i.a.o or hadoop@i.a.o? ... ROTFLOL! But the Jakarta project was so fun! - Shane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.orgjavascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.orgjavascript:;
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other. Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater sense of ownership and identification, which are important to community building. Upayavira On Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: Apologies if this horse has been beaten already, but... have we discussed the concept of splitting incubator operations into a handful of separate groups, based on technology areas? I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and provide community best practice guidance. But then separate mailing lists/groups would provide actual oversight of podlings (incoming, mentoring, graduating). These would be based on rough technology areas: java, hadoop, servers, UI, whatever. That way, people could participate in governance oversight and mentoring in focus areas that they care about, and not have to immediately deal with the many other podlings that are not related in terms of technology/interest areas. Obviously there's a lot about coordinating suggested feedback on policies, best practices, etc. between the groups and the core IPMC/ComDev., but it would (hopefully) result in most of the groups being much quieter, and more focused. - Shane, off to make a GT - 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
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
I'm with Alan on our penchant to solve people problems with reorganization. We lack tangible means of measuring and recognizing that actual oversight is happening in these podlings. And by that I mean that somebody is actually following along as the project develops and providing them with requisite guidance. This whole idea of technology subgroups harkens back to the original organizational structure at Apache, which we abandoned a long time ago because it wound up despoiling our real goal of self- governance. Why it's being reintroduced again just means to me that we don't ever learn from our past mistakes. From: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:16 AM Subject: Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology? I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other. Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater sense of ownership and identification, which are important to community building. Upayavira On Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: Apologies if this horse has been beaten already, but... have we discussed the concept of splitting incubator operations into a handful of separate groups, based on technology areas? I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and provide community best practice guidance. But then separate mailing lists/groups would provide actual oversight of podlings (incoming, mentoring, graduating). These would be based on rough technology areas: java, hadoop, servers, UI, whatever. That way, people could participate in governance oversight and mentoring in focus areas that they care about, and not have to immediately deal with the many other podlings that are not related in terms of technology/interest areas. Obviously there's a lot about coordinating suggested feedback on policies, best practices, etc. between the groups and the core IPMC/ComDev., but it would (hopefully) result in most of the groups being much quieter, and more focused. - Shane, off to make a GT - 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
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 binding Regards, Alan On Jun 14, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - 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
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote: I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other. Can you provide detail on what you mean by prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other? I'm not sure what that means. Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater sense of ownership and identification, which are important to community building. Is that really our problem? Who needs this greater sense of ownership and identification? In short, I'd like proponents of this thread to explain in concrete detail: What is the problem to be solved? What is the base cause of that problem? How does splitting the Incubator in to sub-groups of technology solves the cause of this problem? Regards, Alan
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
What we really need for podlings is a bill of rights towards what they can expect of their mentors, because too few of them actually are willing to question the participation of the people who signed up to mentor them and that's not helping anybody. From: Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology? On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote: I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other. Can you provide detail on what you mean by prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other? I'm not sure what that means. Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater sense of ownership and identification, which are important to community building. Is that really our problem? Who needs this greater sense of ownership and identification? In short, I'd like proponents of this thread to explain in concrete detail: What is the problem to be solved? What is the base cause of that problem? How does splitting the Incubator in to sub-groups of technology solves the cause of this problem? Regards, Alan
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and provide community best practice guidance. But then separate mailing lists/groups would provide actual oversight of podlings (incoming, mentoring, graduating). These would be based on rough technology areas: java, hadoop, servers, UI, whatever. Mmmm, more mailing lists. There's a selling point. ;) You know, when I mentor a podling, I should't care what the technology is. (I learned the hard way about having an interest in the actual technology of the podling and have generated ill will as a result) A mentor can tell if a community gets it without having to know the technology. If anything, mentors who know the technology should not be allowed to mentor that project; an academic position, to be sure, given the dearth of active mentors. Regards, Alan
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: What we really need for podlings is a bill of rights towards what they can expect of their mentors, because too few of them actually are willing to question the participation of the people who signed up to mentor them and that's not helping anybody. Great idea. This spring I sent out personal messages to various podling members and asked them what they thought were problems with the incubator, if there were any. (There's a novel idea, ask the podlings what they think the problems are. Sorry, but slogging through all these emails instead of watching re-runs of Firefly irritates me. :) ) I got an earful. Other than their concern for diversity/activity, the two biggest reported problems are timely resolution infrastructure requests and they way we seem to chronically make up and debase shit in the middle of voting. As a podling incubates we seem to compulsively debate processes, rules, etc., ten feet ahead of the podling train. We're working on the automation bits. Your document on what podlings can expect, in terms of to expect and what noise they can ignore during incubation would be fantastic. I will commit to helping you out with this. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
Brother, you hit the nail on the head. I am so there :) Regards, Alan On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: I'll let it stew for a coupla days before I start charging in, but yeah something along these lines will surely address the palpable feeling of disempowerment we too often dish out. From: Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology? On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: What we really need for podlings is a bill of rights towards what they can expect of their mentors, because too few of them actually are willing to question the participation of the people who signed up to mentor them and that's not helping anybody. Great idea. This spring I sent out personal messages to various podling members and asked them what they thought were problems with the incubator, if there were any. (There's a novel idea, ask the podlings what they think the problems are. Sorry, but slogging through all these emails instead of watching re-runs of Firefly irritates me. :) ) I got an earful. Other than their concern for diversity/activity, the two biggest reported problems are timely resolution infrastructure requests and they way we seem to chronically make up and debase shit in the middle of voting. As a podling incubates we seem to compulsively debate processes, rules, etc., ten feet ahead of the podling train. We're working on the automation bits. Your document on what podlings can expect, in terms of to expect and what noise they can ignore during incubation would be fantastic. I will commit to helping you out with this. Regards, Alan
[PROPOSAL] Mandatory podling exit interviews
Problem: we seem to have unclear and conflicting ideas as to what the areas of improvement are for the Incubator. Cause: we have no concrete, anonymized, information on what the podlings' experiences were during incubation. Solution: require all podlings to submit anonymous exit interviews as part of the graduation requirements. These exit interviews will be suitably scrubbed and organized by the Incubator Ombudsman; see next proposal. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 (non-binding) Regards Lahiru On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- System Analyst Programmer PTI Lab Indiana University
Re: [DISCUSS] Merits of pTLP idea
Hey Ross, Thanks for taking the time to reply. Mine are inline below: -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:50 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Merits of pTLP idea On 14 June 2013 18:11, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: 2. It's harder to discharge a pTLP rather than a podling Jim, Ross: It's going to be harder to pick up the pieces if pTLPs are unsuccessful, than it would be for a podling. I think that is a misrepresentation of what has been said. It's not about picking up the pieces it's about providing adequate mentoring to give a project fighting chance. I guess you and I can agree to disagree that those two different cases don't end up the same result/Net effect -- which they do. Picking up the pieces should a project fail is easy. Preventing a project from unnecessarily failure is less easy. I estimate I've worked with something like 50 new project teams over the years. More than half of them outside the ASF. In my experience the success or failure of a project (assuming a good engineering team and a genuinely useful product) is less to do with the people doing the development work and more to do with the guidance those smart people get at key decision points relating to the open source model. And I'd estimate that I'd worked with at least that many if not more, both within and inside government, outside in academia, in private industry and others. Based on my experience it's actually more of an even distribution of both -- you can't succeed without the people doing the development work, and you can't succeed without those people being high caliber. Mentorship is key and you need high caliber there too, but I'd expect the balance to be 50/50. So it's not about picking up the pieces it's about spotting when the process is failing early enough to fix it and then having the right vehicle to provide support. In the majority of cases the mentoring model we have is perfect. It works far more than it fails. When it fails the problem is ISSUE 01 coupled with 03 (all other issues are symptoms of those issues in my opinion). pTLP can help address this but not, in my opinion, when coupled to your larger dismantling proposal. Ross: pTLP is a *part* of my deconstruction proposal. Stop trying to act like I didn't suggest it -- steps 4/5 in my proposal. I suggested it. Nearly 2 years ago. Further as becomes clear below in your replies, you are also missing the part _where_I_am_agreeing_with_you_about_incremental_steps :) I keep saying my proposal is a series of steps that can be executed incrementally, but when taken together when the dust clears, you will have a dismantled Incubator -- not a dismantled Incubation process. The process rocks. The mentorship is as best as can be expected when it works. The collective whole of a decision making body of 170 people..doesn't. And it sucks. I want to explore pTLP as part of the existing incubation process, not as a replacement for it. Precisely how that will work requires some experimentation - hence the Stratos proposal. 3. There isn't any benefit to implementing pTLPs Jim: I see no real benefit to implementing pTLPs. Chris: The benefits would immediately be that they don't have to go in front of a 170+ person committee to get a decision. Chris, podlings that don't hit ISSUE 01 (that's the majority) don't have to go to the IPMC now. Why are you claiming they do? The process is one of *notification* that a vote has been conducted not one of review. If mentors allow the IPMC to get in the way that's a failing of the mentors not the process. In the 18+ projects I've mentored at the ASF we have only ever once had to request an IPMC member vote. Once. Even then it was painless because we had a brilliant mentor who had already addressed all the issues in the release (not me I hasten to add - thanks Ate). Sometimes it has taken some robust protection of the podling here in the IPMC lists (take a look at some of my posts relating to AOO for example), but that's part of the job of a mentor in my opinion. Ross -- look what you just said. You said that one of the big successes you and your podlings have had over the years is keeping those podlings away from the IPMC. Shouldn't that suggest that there is something wrong with the IPMC? There is. I didn't say that there is something wrong with Incubation and Mentors I said IPMC. Note there is a key legal definition and difference. My proposal (pTLP being an incremental step in it) precisely calls out what you said above as an issue, see the heading titled: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal Mentors encourage their podlings to operate autonomously In my proposed experiment I want to take the advantages of the pTLP (specifically it clearly defines the
Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
The Board is always the responsible party, but in the sense that you mean responsibility in finding a fix, then I fully agree. IMO, if a pTLP gets into the weeds, then the Board will just say fix yourself within six months, or we dismantle you. Cheers, -g On Jun 15, 2013 2:58 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: That first sentence still doesn't parse, sorry ... I should have said I don't like the idea of the board taking responsibility. I have no problem with it receiving reports directly. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 07:55, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports for podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of cases. I'll expand on that in Chris' thread. I'll note that in this thread I answered the question of who Stratos should report to with the board, but I'll also note I don't expect the board to provide mentoring. That is a key difference between what I am proposing for pTLP and the original deconstruction proposal. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: ... Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea. I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting. Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here... The Incubator gathers reports from all of its podlings. It reviews them, discusses some aspects with those podlings, and then it files a report with the ASF Board. Three paragraphs stating, Hey. No issues. Everything is going great. Community is good. Legal is good. kthxbai. Would that fly with the ASF Board? Not a chance. The simple fact is that the Board *does* want to see reports from podlings. Those podlings will (hopefully) become part of the Foundation one day. The Board is *keenly* interested in what is going on, and how those podlings are doing. If you suggest a model of a total black box. Where *no* podling information escapes from the Incubator to the Board. And then one day... *poof!!* ... a graduation resolution appears before the Board. Do you honestly think the Board would just sign off on that? Again: not a chance. What this really means is: the Board wants to review podlings' progress and operations. I don't see how it can be argued any other way. So if that is true, then why does the IPMC need to be a middle man? Why not provide those reports from the podling directly to the Board? And why not get the podling directly engaged with the actual operation of the Foundation? About how to report to the Board? About shepherds, watching for commentary in the agenda, about committing to that agenda!, and about paying attention to board@ and its operations. If we want to teach new communities about how the ASF works, then why the artificial operation of the Incubator? Why not place them directly in contact with the *real* ASF? By all measures, Apache Subversion would have been a pTLP when it arrived at the Incubator. But we integrated very well into the ASF because there were Members, Directors, and other long-term Apache people who could answer huh? what is a PMC Member? how does that map to our 'full committer' status? what are these reports? ... and more. The close attention, and the direct integration with the Foundation, worked as well as you could expect. The Incubator did not provide much value, beyond what the extent Members were already providing (recall that we easily had a half-dozen at the time; I don't know the count offhand, but it was well past any normal podling). The Incubator may not provide value to certain projects that reach the pTLP bar (again: some thumbs-up definition of that is needed!), but it is *very* much required for projects/communities that are not as familiar with how we like to do things here. In this concrete case of Stratos, I personally (and as a voting Director) have every confidence in trying the pTLP approach. I outlined some areas that I believe the Board needs before accepting a pTLP, and so I'm looking forward to this experiment. I think it will turn out well. I do think we may be setting up some communities for anger, when the Board chooses to *not* grant pTLP status and refers the community to the Incubator. I really don't have a good answer there, especially around the future/obvious direction of pTLP is only for the Old Boys Club and other insiders. Sigh. Can't be helped, I think. Anyhow. To the original point: pTLP reporting to the Board is practically speaking a no-brainer. Podlings generally report direct to the Board today, minus some
Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of PodlingBillOfRights by JoeSchaefer
Ok Alan I'm done hacking on the page for now. Have at it folks, if you so choose. From: Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org To: Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:52 PM Subject: [Incubator Wiki] Update of PodlingBillOfRights by JoeSchaefer Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Incubator Wiki for change notification. The PodlingBillOfRights page has been changed by JoeSchaefer: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/PodlingBillOfRights?action=diffrev1=3rev2=4 Comment: a few ignorables 6) Podlings have the right to express their opinions concerning their incubation efforts post-graduation (or post-mortem) in the form of an anonymous survey. + 7) Podlings have the right to ignore commentary made on general@incubator in the middle of a VOTE thread, especially during releases. Reminder- release votes are a majority consensus vote, so a seeing a few -1's occasionally are expected and often ignorable by the RM should he otherwise see a majority of at least 3 binding IPMC votes. + + 8) Podling committers have the right to remain unsubscribed to general@incubator. Any relevant policy changes can expected to be passed along by the podling's mentors. + - To unsubscribe, e-mail: cvs-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: cvs-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem. Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and sometimes mentors are the problem. Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman. From now on I'm only going to look at solutions in the context of the issues on the wiki page. If a proposal doesn't apply to one or more issues I'm not interested. In this case... The only problem that would need an ombudsmen is ISSUE 01 (inactive mentors). Mentors should always know where to go to solve a problem (we have specialist committees for pretty much every issue that will arise). If mentors are inactive then ISSUE 01 is in play. The current place to go is the IPMC. At this point ISSUE 03 may well come into play. The idea of an Ombudsman overlaps with my earlier proposal for a psuedo-board in the IPMC. Its also similar to both suggested solutions for ISSUE 03 in the wiki. For these reasons I suggest the Ombudsmen proposal has merit. I also suggest that this ombudsmen could be the organisation responsible for acting if a podling (or a pTLP, if the experiment shows merit in this model) is failing. As always the details needs to be ironed out but since the proposal directly addresses ISSUE 03 I would like to see it explored. I especially like that it complements my pTLP experiment which is designed to address ISSUE 01 (but clearly your proposal is worth exploring even without that potential advantage). Ross Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Mandatory podling exit interviews
I'm not keen on this one. I don't like surveys and I don't like mandatory activities for volunteers. However, a pro-active invitation to feedback on experiences at any time during incubation or shortly after would be good. Even better would be recruiting more valuable people from podlings as mentors. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 16:48, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: we seem to have unclear and conflicting ideas as to what the areas of improvement are for the Incubator. Cause: we have no concrete, anonymized, information on what the podlings' experiences were during incubation. Solution: require all podlings to submit anonymous exit interviews as part of the graduation requirements. These exit interviews will be suitably scrubbed and organized by the Incubator Ombudsman; see next proposal. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
+1 Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 16:04, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote: I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other. Can you provide detail on what you mean by prospective podlings playing the incubators against each other? I'm not sure what that means. Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater sense of ownership and identification, which are important to community building. Is that really our problem? Who needs this greater sense of ownership and identification? In short, I'd like proponents of this thread to explain in concrete detail: What is the problem to be solved? What is the base cause of that problem? How does splitting the Incubator in to sub-groups of technology solves the cause of this problem? Regards, Alan
Re: [PROPOSAL] Mandatory podling exit interviews
Agreed on the undesirability of making survey participation mandatory. On the wiki page in question I framed it as a right that surveys are available fwiw. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I'm not keen on this one. I don't like surveys and I don't like mandatory activities for volunteers. However, a pro-active invitation to feedback on experiences at any time during incubation or shortly after would be good. Even better would be recruiting more valuable people from podlings as mentors. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 16:48, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: we seem to have unclear and conflicting ideas as to what the areas of improvement are for the Incubator. Cause: we have no concrete, anonymized, information on what the podlings' experiences were during incubation. Solution: require all podlings to submit anonymous exit interviews as part of the graduation requirements. These exit interviews will be suitably scrubbed and organized by the Incubator Ombudsman; see next proposal. Regards, Alan - 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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide themselves. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem. Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and sometimes mentors are the problem. Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman. From now on I'm only going to look at solutions in the context of the issues on the wiki page. If a proposal doesn't apply to one or more issues I'm not interested. In this case... The only problem that would need an ombudsmen is ISSUE 01 (inactive mentors). Mentors should always know where to go to solve a problem (we have specialist committees for pretty much every issue that will arise). If mentors are inactive then ISSUE 01 is in play. The current place to go is the IPMC. At this point ISSUE 03 may well come into play. The idea of an Ombudsman overlaps with my earlier proposal for a psuedo-board in the IPMC. Its also similar to both suggested solutions for ISSUE 03 in the wiki. For these reasons I suggest the Ombudsmen proposal has merit. I also suggest that this ombudsmen could be the organisation responsible for acting if a podling (or a pTLP, if the experiment shows merit in this model) is failing. As always the details needs to be ironed out but since the proposal directly addresses ISSUE 03 I would like to see it explored. I especially like that it complements my pTLP experiment which is designed to address ISSUE 01 (but clearly your proposal is worth exploring even without that potential advantage). Ross Regards, Alan - 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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
+1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least. No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion). ++ 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: Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:52 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide themselves. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem. Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and sometimes mentors are the problem. Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman. From now on I'm only going to look at solutions in the context of the issues on the wiki page. If a proposal doesn't apply to one or more issues I'm not interested. In this case... The only problem that would need an ombudsmen is ISSUE 01 (inactive mentors). Mentors should always know where to go to solve a problem (we have specialist committees for pretty much every issue that will arise). If mentors are inactive then ISSUE 01 is in play. The current place to go is the IPMC. At this point ISSUE 03 may well come into play. The idea of an Ombudsman overlaps with my earlier proposal for a psuedo-board in the IPMC. Its also similar to both suggested solutions for ISSUE 03 in the wiki. For these reasons I suggest the Ombudsmen proposal has merit. I also suggest that this ombudsmen could be the organisation responsible for acting if a podling (or a pTLP, if the experiment shows merit in this model) is failing. As always the details needs to be ironed out but since the proposal directly addresses ISSUE 03 I would like to see it explored. I especially like that it complements my pTLP experiment which is designed to address ISSUE 01 (but clearly your proposal is worth exploring even without that potential advantage). Ross Regards, Alan - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
+1 binding. 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, June 14, 2013 2:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - 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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem. Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and sometimes mentors are the problem. Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman. Personally I don't see much value add over a set of active mentors + IPMC chair. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
FWIW I support the proposal, just pointing out why this idea hasn't gained traction over the years. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: +1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least. No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion). ++ 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: Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:52 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide themselves. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem. Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and sometimes mentors are the problem. Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman. From now on I'm only going to look at solutions in the context of the issues on the wiki page. If a proposal doesn't apply to one or more issues I'm not interested. In this case... The only problem that would need an ombudsmen is ISSUE 01 (inactive mentors). Mentors should always know where to go to solve a problem (we have specialist committees for pretty much every issue that will arise). If mentors are inactive then ISSUE 01 is in play. The current place to go is the IPMC. At this point ISSUE 03 may well come into play. The idea of an Ombudsman overlaps with my earlier proposal for a psuedo-board in the IPMC. Its also similar to both suggested solutions for ISSUE 03 in the wiki. For these reasons I suggest the Ombudsmen proposal has merit. I also suggest that this ombudsmen could be the organisation responsible for acting if a podling (or a pTLP, if the experiment shows merit in this model) is failing. As always the details needs to be ironed out but since the proposal directly addresses ISSUE 03 I would like to see it explored. I especially like that it complements my pTLP experiment which is designed to address ISSUE 01 (but clearly your proposal is worth exploring even without that potential advantage). Ross Regards, Alan - 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 - 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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem. Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and sometimes mentors are the problem. Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman. This is in fact one of the central responsibilities of any PMC chair at Apache, including the IPMC chair. http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair Remember that, as in any meeting, the chair is a facilitator and their role within the PMC is to ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard and to enable meetings to flow smoothly. There is no concept of leader in the Apache way. The title of Vice President is misleading, as the chair is much more of an ombudsman than a decision maker. If there is confusion, it may be worthwhile to emphasize the ombudsman aspect of the chair position. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
Marvin, That change was agreed in the discuss thread. I failed to look to see if it had been made before I called the vote. My bad. Ross Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 19:56, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: -0, because the proposal was not frozen and has been edited since the VOTE started. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StratosProposal?action=diffrev1=46rev2=47 Marvin Humphrey On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - 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
Re: Incubator reorg ideas: sub-groups per technology?
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: What we really need for podlings is a bill of rights towards what they can expect of their mentors, because too few of them actually are willing to question the participation of the people who signed up to mentor them and that's not helping anybody. I like the premise - folks coming in with no expectations don't know whether the incubator is failing them or if their experience is normal. There's also a reticence to complain about volunteers. Specifically, we should set explicit expectations, and then add content on where to escalate when those expectations aren't being met. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Change of Chair
Le 6/13/13 11:03 PM, Benson Margulies a écrit : Incubator community, I have tendered my resignation as VP, Incubator. The PMC has recommend Marvin Humphrey as my successor in a motion submitted to the Foundation board for consideration at the meeting next week. We have had 3 very good chairman those last years (Noel, Jukka and you), and I'm pretty sure the new chairman will be as good as they were ! Congrats to all of you, guys ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
Marvin my apologies - I didn't get a chance to do it immediately and then because I don't have edit rights currently I asked Azeez to edit that sentence in but that was a few days later .. As Ross said that's what I sent via email before and in any case its a positive thing for the proposal. However, I understand the principle violation and accept your -0 vote. Cheers, Sanjiva. On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote: -0, because the proposal was not frozen and has been edited since the VOTE started. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StratosProposal?action=diffrev1=46rev2=47 Marvin Humphrey On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - 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 -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Chairman CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 650 265 8311 blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
Not your bad. An obvious change based on discussion. IMO, I say Marvin is being overly pedantic. On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Marvin, That change was agreed in the discuss thread. I failed to look to see if it had been made before I called the vote. My bad. Ross Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 19:56, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: -0, because the proposal was not frozen and has been edited since the VOTE started. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StratosProposal?action=diffrev1=46rev2=47 Marvin Humphrey On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project
Please don't apologize for a change that is proper and Right. In fact, when you look at the *actual* change, it is awesome. It is a clear benefit for the podling and project, and a demonstration of WSO2's generosity around the trademarks that it has worked to build. There should not be a need to apologize for Doing The Right Thing. I find it Wrong that others should make you feel like you've done something wrong. Grrr. Great first steps for Marvin before the Board votes him to be the new IPMC Chair. :-( -g On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana sanj...@wso2.com wrote: Marvin my apologies - I didn't get a chance to do it immediately and then because I don't have edit rights currently I asked Azeez to edit that sentence in but that was a few days later .. As Ross said that's what I sent via email before and in any case its a positive thing for the proposal. However, I understand the principle violation and accept your -0 vote. Cheers, Sanjiva. On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote: -0, because the proposal was not frozen and has been edited since the VOTE started. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StratosProposal?action=diffrev1=46rev2=47 Marvin Humphrey On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1]. I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation policy. The acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a separate issue that will be explored during the first month of incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote. This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling. [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project because... (provide reason) It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run well into next week to allow for the weekend. Thank you for your votes. Ross - 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 -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Chairman CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 650 265 8311 blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ Lean . Enterprise . Middleware - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
