Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On 17 January 2012 04:07, Hyrum K Wright hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com wrote: (That, and I haven't yet learned how to wade through the fire hose that is general@incubator to spot potential reminders.) If everything is set up right Marvin will send reminders to the project lists. You might have been on the cusp this time around. If you don't see the reminders next time then you have missed something in the project setup process. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: ... -1 on forwarding on the following reports as they are Missing: Bloodhound I'll take responsibility for this one. As a first-time mentor, I completely spaced the reporting requirement; particularly since the deluge of Bloodhound-related discussion induced a sort of fatigue on that topic. I'll ensure it happens next month. (That, and I haven't yet learned how to wade through the fire hose that is general@incubator to spot potential reminders.) -Hyrum Callback/Cordova HISE JSPWiki Openmeetings -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to fix all that is broken in the Incubator single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and fix all that is broken in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - 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: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to fix all that is broken in the Incubator single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and fix all that is broken in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. I have no legal training. I'm not CEO of Oracle. I don't have the US$100B that would be required to buy Oracle. I now have limited computer access time. I am now incapable of driving public campaigns to influence corporate behaviour. I admit that there are some things that I can fix. The JCP is just one of them. Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. Kato is stalled by external events over which the contributors and Mentors have no control. Mark and freeze would at least inform anyone who wants to terminate the podling to do so. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800: Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers). And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - 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: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
I don't see why. When you apply to a university you either receive an acceptance letter or a letter of regret; we don't have to make any other distinctions regarding our internal reasons either. Simply part ways amicably and help them thru the exit door, no matter if they were chronic policy violators or simply didn't muster a sufficient dev community. - Original Message - From: Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800: Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers). And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - 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: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
- Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to fix all that is broken in the Incubator single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and fix all that is broken in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. I have no legal training. I'm not CEO of Oracle. I don't have the US$100B that would be required to buy Oracle. I now have limited computer access time. I am now incapable of driving public campaigns to influence corporate behaviour. I admit that there are some things that I can fix. The JCP is just one of them. There's always the realistic and humble approach of changing the things you can change instead of idly waiting for events beyond your control to transpire. Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. Kato is stalled by external events over which the contributors and Mentors have no control. Mark and freeze would at least inform anyone who wants to terminate the podling to do so. Robert - 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: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. Project PMCs are not allowed to delegate oversight without board permission Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? Joe thats just not the issue, we weren't unaware or mislead by the state of the poddling, its just that up till now its never been a problem for a poddling to be not moving. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
- Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. Project PMCs are not allowed to delegate oversight without board permission There you go again Robert, making up rules about corporate governance that have no basis in reality. It is certainly a-ok for the Incubator to charge mentors with the primary responsibility of performing oversight over their podlings- after all mentors are ON THE IPMC! If we need to make a collective decision to terminate a podling, we can do that, but ideally it's based on the advice and counsel of the mentors. Advice that to this point has not been particularly forthcoming from the Kato mentors. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
- Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? Joe thats just not the issue, we weren't unaware or mislead by the state of the poddling, its just that up till now its never been a problem for a poddling to be not moving. I've seen you claim that yes, but that doesn't mean it's an accurate statement. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. Project PMCs are not allowed to delegate oversight without board permission There you go again Robert, making up rules about corporate governance that have no basis in reality. This is why the Members asked the Board to break up Jakarta Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. Last time I looked, every Mentor is on the IPMC: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Mentor All Mentors must be members of the Incubator PMC. While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to fix all that is broken in the Incubator single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and fix all that is broken in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. I have no legal training. I'm not CEO of Oracle. I don't have the US$100B that would be required to buy Oracle. I now have limited computer access time. I am now incapable of driving public campaigns to influence corporate behaviour. I admit that there are some things that I can fix. The JCP is just one of them. There's always the realistic and humble approach of changing the things you can change instead of idly waiting for events beyond your control to transpire. Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. Kato is stalled by external events over which the contributors and Mentors have no control. Mark and freeze would at least inform anyone who wants to terminate the podling to do so. Robert - 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 -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
True, but decisions can't be delegated to individuals, only tasks. Robert conveniently blurs the two. - Original Message - From: Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. Last time I looked, every Mentor is on the IPMC: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Mentor All Mentors must be members of the Incubator PMC. While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to fix all that is broken in the Incubator single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and fix all that is broken in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. I have no legal training. I'm not CEO of Oracle. I don't have the US$100B that would be required to buy Oracle. I now have limited computer access time. I am now incapable of driving public campaigns to influence corporate behaviour. I admit that there are some things that I can fix. The JCP is just one of them. There's always the realistic and humble approach of changing the things you can change instead of idly waiting for events beyond your control to transpire. Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. Kato is stalled by external events over which the contributors and Mentors have no control. Mark and freeze would at least inform anyone who wants to terminate the podling to do so. Robert - 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 -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - 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: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Hi, On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. It's indeed pretty clearly documented already: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Responsibilities+toward+the+Incubator+PMC BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Relevant difference: when we reject a project we do that on public lists, when you apply to a university the fact you did so is private. Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:03:45 -0800: I don't see why. When you apply to a university you either receive an acceptance letter or a letter of regret; we don't have to make any other distinctions regarding our internal reasons either. Simply part ways amicably and help them thru the exit door, no matter if they were chronic policy violators or simply didn't muster a sufficient dev community. - Original Message - From: Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800: Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers). And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
I think the email trail will be fairly clear one way or the other, and hence still oppose adding more labels to the situation. - Original Message - From: Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:37 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] Relevant difference: when we reject a project we do that on public lists, when you apply to a university the fact you did so is private. Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 09:03:45 -0800: I don't see why. When you apply to a university you either receive an acceptance letter or a letter of regret; we don't have to make any other distinctions regarding our internal reasons either. Simply part ways amicably and help them thru the exit door, no matter if they were chronic policy violators or simply didn't muster a sufficient dev community. - Original Message - From: Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800: Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers). And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - 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
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be really clear about their views about several different podling profiles. a: A reasonably diverse group of 5-7 people start a podling. A year later, they've made a release or two, but no one new has turned up. Mentors attest to good community behavior, openness to patches -- just no one who has done enough to be added to the group. In other words, all good as a prospective TLP except that they've never been through the process of adding someone. b: A group of 3-4, otherwise the same as (a). Thus, a risk of falling below critical mass. c: not even enough people to be a TLP by any stretch of the imagination. I would say, with all respect to Ant, that the Foundation clearly has not put the IPMC in the business of hosting tiny projects like (c). The term 'failure' applies after some period of time. If folks wish that the foundation had a place for such a project, I would submit that this would be a discussion to have with the board as to what that place might be and how it might work. Otherwise, Joe's views seem entirely on point. I think that it would be a good idea to emphasize in the discussion of prospective podlings with small initial groups. If it's really clear from the outset that a failure to grow in 12 months or so will mean an exit, then it will be easier on everyone. I know that some people feel that (a) podlings can just graduate, period. If there are people who disagree, I'd like to know, because it will allow me to give better advice to Accumulo. If I sadly succeed in merely annoying anyone with this post, I'll set my go-away timer for several weeks. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
You didn't annoy me Benson, I think you're spot on, +1. Cheers, Chris On Jan 15, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be really clear about their views about several different podling profiles. a: A reasonably diverse group of 5-7 people start a podling. A year later, they've made a release or two, but no one new has turned up. Mentors attest to good community behavior, openness to patches -- just no one who has done enough to be added to the group. In other words, all good as a prospective TLP except that they've never been through the process of adding someone. b: A group of 3-4, otherwise the same as (a). Thus, a risk of falling below critical mass. c: not even enough people to be a TLP by any stretch of the imagination. I would say, with all respect to Ant, that the Foundation clearly has not put the IPMC in the business of hosting tiny projects like (c). The term 'failure' applies after some period of time. If folks wish that the foundation had a place for such a project, I would submit that this would be a discussion to have with the board as to what that place might be and how it might work. Otherwise, Joe's views seem entirely on point. I think that it would be a good idea to emphasize in the discussion of prospective podlings with small initial groups. If it's really clear from the outset that a failure to grow in 12 months or so will mean an exit, then it will be easier on everyone. I know that some people feel that (a) podlings can just graduate, period. If there are people who disagree, I'd like to know, because it will allow me to give better advice to Accumulo. If I sadly succeed in merely annoying anyone with this post, I'll set my go-away timer for several weeks. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Hi Robert... On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato Allow me to disagree with you about that part, Mentors are *part* of the IPMC and they should not only watch/monitor podlings w/o trying to spot problems and try their best to deliver that to the IPMC, or even try to solve or suggest solutions for such problems. The way you are descriping Mentors is, IMO, very passive. I am sure that we can not make each and every mentor to be like that, but this is how a mentor should be IMO. has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.comwrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to fix all that is broken in the Incubator single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and fix all that is broken in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. Big +1 Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. I agree in a general way, but there is a question here, what really defines a failing project from the Incubator PoV, is that they don't report properly, or they don't grow enough community, etc... ? More specifically for the last point, what is the community is very active but they just happen not able to get more blood, just because what they do is not appealing to attract more developers anymore ? I know this is related to one of the most important aspects of ASF, that is building a community around software. But the thing is, why kick them out, as long as they do well, and if it is about the community growth, we already have the tool for that, that is if project became dead or in active we put on retire and it is done. Briefly what I want to say is that we can not make one general rule and apply on all podlings that we as IPMC see that they are not doing well. I think it is better to check case by case, which I know would not be easy. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - 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 -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.namewrote: Joe Schaefer wrote on Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:48:02 -0800: Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. For that to work we should be able to make a (public) distinction between projects that failed to graduate due to 'negative' reasons (say: having dev discussions off-list) and for 'non-positive' reasons (say: failed to maintain 3 active PMCers). And clarify if/how projects that were leaved may ask to reenter. +1 The idea needs more details for sure IMHO, but I like the base line of it. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now. (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any podling which leaves the main sequence...) Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last. A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient restart) is IMO the right way to manage this. Robert - 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 -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? Last time I looked, the board charge the IPMC with this duty, not Mentors Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC. If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity. Project PMCs are not allowed to delegate oversight without board permission What Joe is trying to say, AFAIU, is that IPMC is represented here by mentors, and that is the core role of a Mentor, at least if understand that correctly. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
I'd like to suggest that whatever rules we come up with are derived from actual cases we've seen over our time here. Robert is not alone by any stretch, he's just clueful enough to be willing to be open and honestabout it. I'd have no problems supporting a podling whose mentors review their reports and provide feedback to those podlings about their progress towards graduation, even if they are 3 years plus into incubation. Some things really do take time. But in the situation with Kato, report after report parrots the same status spanning over a year (and yes it's similar in Tashi), with no clear plan how the project is to continue on its path towards graduation. At this point, all I'm suggesting is that someone, preferably a mentor, open a dialog with Kato about the hung status, and let the podling make a decision about what it wants to do, while removing the option of continuing along with the status quo. If there's a feasible plan that could lead to graduation, go for it, but if there's not, then consider retirement. From: Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually making progress or not. If mentors don't do that, who does? The chair? A super-committee? Nobody? While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to fix all that is broken in the Incubator single-handedly, I do expect you to care enough to try and fix all that is broken in your podling. It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own feedback on how they are doing. That IMO is what you signed up to do as mentor. Big +1 Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation effort? Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere? I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator. I agree in a general way, but there is a question here, what really defines a failing project from the Incubator PoV, is that they don't report properly, or they don't grow enough community, etc... ? More specifically for the last point, what is the community is very active but they just happen not able to get more blood, just because what they do is not appealing to attract more developers anymore ? I know this is related to one of the most important aspects of ASF, that is building a community around software. But the thing is, why kick them out, as long as they do well, and if it is about the community growth, we already have the tool for that, that is if project became dead or in active we put on retire and it is done. Briefly what I want to say is that we can not make one general rule and apply on all podlings that we as IPMC see that they are not doing well. I think it is better to check case by case, which I know would not be easy. - Original Message - From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)] On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: snip I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken in the Incubator. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence. IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC community
-1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. -1 on forwarding on the following reports as they are Missing: Bloodhound Callback/Cordova HISE JSPWiki Openmeetings -1 on forwarding on the following report as it was not signed off by a Mentor: VXQuery -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix Tashi For completeness, +1 on submitting the following reports: Approve for forwarding to the board: Any23 Chuckwa Deft DeltaSpike DirectMemory EasyAnt Empire-DB Flex Giraph Kafka Kitty Lucy Mesos (borderline, but planning a release is good) ODFToolkit Oozie - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not doing very much in the meantime? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re:-1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
Thank you Sam. Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had been written by a community member and commented by myself and Jukka on the Dev list in plenty of time. Jukka already raised this issue on the Dev list prior to your mail here. Conclusion, new project learning the ropes. Mentors on top of things. Re OpenMeetings - mentors absent (I am one of them, busy dayjob month for me, must do better) Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 11, 2012 10:50 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. -1 on forwarding on the following reports as they are Missing: Bloodhound Callback/Cordova HISE JSPWiki Openmeetings -1 on forwarding on the following report as it was not signed off by a Mentor: VXQuery -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix Tashi For completeness, +1 on submitting the following reports: Approve for forwarding to the board: Any23 Chuckwa Deft DeltaSpike DirectMemory EasyAnt Empire-DB Flex Giraph Kafka Kitty Lucy Mesos (borderline, but planning a release is good) ODFToolkit Oozie - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
Re: Cordova was completely my fault. I think after writing it and getting some quick consensus/approval my brain mistakenly filed it as done. Won't happen again! On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Thank you Sam. Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had been written by a community member and commented by myself and Jukka on the Dev list in plenty of time. Jukka already raised this issue on the Dev list prior to your mail here. Conclusion, new project learning the ropes. Mentors on top of things. Re OpenMeetings - mentors absent (I am one of them, busy dayjob month for me, must do better) Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 11, 2012 10:50 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. -1 on forwarding on the following reports as they are Missing: Bloodhound Callback/Cordova HISE JSPWiki Openmeetings -1 on forwarding on the following report as it was not signed off by a Mentor: VXQuery -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix Tashi For completeness, +1 on submitting the following reports: Approve for forwarding to the board: Any23 Chuckwa Deft DeltaSpike DirectMemory EasyAnt Empire-DB Flex Giraph Kafka Kitty Lucy Mesos (borderline, but planning a release is good) ODFToolkit Oozie - Sam Ruby - 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: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
Hi, Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave Benson to clarify. I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. Regards, Stuart On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not doing very much in the meantime? ...ant - 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: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: Hi, Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave Benson to clarify. Contrary to how things work here in the Incubator, at least 6 Directors read each and every report that is forwarded to the Board monthly. Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. A number of times a year the board rejects a report for one reason or another. In each case, we do not kick the project out, we simply ask that a corrected report be submitted the next month. In extreme cases, we as a project to go back to a monthly reporting schedule. I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. If you believe that unlike previous quarters, there is some reason to actually believe that things will be clearing up shortly, at a very minimum, put THAT in the report. Show that something is actually happening, or something new is being attempted, or something unexpected came up. Anything other than repeating the same optimistic and apparently unrealistic content over and over again. Regards, Stuart - Sam Ruby P.S. I will state that we already have had a more meaningful discussion on this topic than has been typical for the incubator. I encourage others to participate in this discussion. Both people who agree with me and people see things differently. Anything would be better than mindlessly forwarding on reports without actually reading them. On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not doing very much in the meantime? ...ant - 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: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: Hi, Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave Benson to clarify. Uh, oh, what have I done now? I don't even know which project this is referring to. It is certainly true that one -1 vote on one report does not boot a podling out of the incubator, that's for sure. I'd imagine that the appropriate response is to come up with an appropriate report. Shutting down the podling would be an *eventual* response to a problematic report or to complete silence in response to a request for one. I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. Regards, Stuart On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not doing very much in the meantime? ...ant - 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: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next month? WDYT? Greetings, Marcel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: Hi, Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave Benson to clarify. Contrary to how things work here in the Incubator, at least 6 Directors read each and every report that is forwarded to the Board monthly. Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. Sam, This is the last response I'm going to send into any thread on this topic, since I despair of ever writing anything that you don't interpret as some sort of a faux pas. The most recent message that bothered you was, really, just a paraphrase of email from Bertrand from some time ago. Why you thought that my remark about IPMC members reading podling reports as some sort of comment on the behavior of board members is, honestly, a mystery to me. Not, let me add, a mystery that I have any enthusiasm for unravelling. It is tempting for me to again summarize the discussion between (at least) Joe, Bertrand, and (quite minimally) me, but it seems a waste of electrons. I am going to concentrate on the podlings that I'm responsible for, and when their number declines slightly I'll turn up and endeavor to be helpful with others. This discussion has plenty of opinion to go around without mine, and I regret joining it, let alone trying to start a thread discussing something else. --benson A number of times a year the board rejects a report for one reason or another. In each case, we do not kick the project out, we simply ask that a corrected report be submitted the next month. In extreme cases, we as a project to go back to a monthly reporting schedule. I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. If you believe that unlike previous quarters, there is some reason to actually believe that things will be clearing up shortly, at a very minimum, put THAT in the report. Show that something is actually happening, or something new is being attempted, or something unexpected came up. Anything other than repeating the same optimistic and apparently unrealistic content over and over again. Regards, Stuart - Sam Ruby P.S. I will state that we already have had a more meaningful discussion on this topic than has been typical for the incubator. I encourage others to participate in this discussion. Both people who agree with me and people see things differently. Anything would be better than mindlessly forwarding on reports without actually reading them. On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
As with most things in life, things need a kick from time to time. What about collecting a nice list of 'what's the monthly report thingy about' which explains that it's not just filed unread but is pretty important. Plus again explain what information the board likes to get and that it's not only a technical report but should also reflect the state of the respective projects community. And then send this nice little letter to PMCs@a.o LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:55 AM Subject: Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings) On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith stuk...@stoo.me.uk wrote: Hi, Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave Benson to clarify. Contrary to how things work here in the Incubator, at least 6 Directors read each and every report that is forwarded to the Board monthly. Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. A number of times a year the board rejects a report for one reason or another. In each case, we do not kick the project out, we simply ask that a corrected report be submitted the next month. In extreme cases, we as a project to go back to a monthly reporting schedule. I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. If you believe that unlike previous quarters, there is some reason to actually believe that things will be clearing up shortly, at a very minimum, put THAT in the report. Show that something is actually happening, or something new is being attempted, or something unexpected came up. Anything other than repeating the same optimistic and apparently unrealistic content over and over again. Regards, Stuart - Sam Ruby P.S. I will state that we already have had a more meaningful discussion on this topic than has been typical for the incubator. I encourage others to participate in this discussion. Both people who agree with me and people see things differently. Anything would be better than mindlessly forwarding on reports without actually reading them. On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not doing very much in the meantime? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote: On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next month? WDYT? I'm participating here as an Incubator PMC member. If the Incubator portion of the Incbator report states that it was the lack of a crisp plan for graduation was noted and discussed and will be addressed in the next quarterly report, then I will gladly withdraw my -1 on this report. Greetings, Marcel - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote: On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next month? WDYT? That's exactly what Sam is describing. Pull the incomplete report (Noel could choose to do so) and submit a more comprehensive report next month. No harm no foul. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote: On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next month? WDYT? I'm participating here as an Incubator PMC member. If the Incubator portion of the Incbator report states that it was the lack of a crisp plan for graduation was noted and discussed and will be addressed in the next quarterly report, then I will gladly withdraw my -1 on this report. Good point, I will explicitly add that so the board knows that a plan is being discussed, it was just not ready for inclusion in this report yet. Greetings, Marcel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:11 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote: On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next month? WDYT? That's exactly what Sam is describing. Pull the incomplete report (Noel could choose to do so) and submit a more comprehensive report next month. No harm no foul. Ok, so I will: a) wait to see if Noel pulls this months report completely; b) either report next month or when the next report is due in three months. The only point I was trying to make is that, as soon as discussions here were going in a direction where podlings over a year old should start coming up with a more concrete plan for graduation, I started this discussion on the Celix list as well. However, due to some vacations, that discussion has started attracting responses only this week. So it's just a timing issue, the community is aware and dealing with it. This board report just came a bit too soon. Greetings, Marcel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote: The only point I was trying to make is that, as soon as discussions here were going in a direction where podlings over a year old should start coming up with a more concrete plan for graduation, I started this discussion on the Celix list as well. Excellent! However, due to some vacations, that discussion has started attracting responses only this week. So it's just a timing issue, the community is aware and dealing with it. This board report just came a bit too soon. Understandable. Note: I'm a mentor of JSPWiki. I, too, kicked off some discussions there that are only now starting to produce results. Note that I included JSPWiki in the list of projects who should be asked to report again next month. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. To be clear, *I* read every word of every Board report that we send on. I don't take issue with whatever else you wrote. I even accept that I might well be the only person who reads the whole report. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
