Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote: The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? I have *not* had time to digest this thread yet. So my comments below are based on the above re-statement of the abstract idea. I promised some details about my past experiences leading a team to provide mentoring to over 600 UK institutions with over 1000 projects active at any one time (note that does not mean we had hands on activity with all those projects, in fact not all of them were software development projects, in reality we handled hundreds not thousands, but then we were only 5 people, only one of which knew real open development and only one other was technical). Unfortunately I have not had the time to get this down into a sensible post and the discussions here have been far too fast moving for me to keep up during this busy time outside the ASF. That being said, the approach I eventually took in that previous activity was to encourage individuals to own verticals, that is areas of work that the individual was interested in. Somewhere where they could get direct personal benefit from being involved with these projects. Where the individuals doing this work cared about the work they were doing (i.e. it wasn't just a job) this strategy worked very well. We developed a defined support plan. This provided models by which we could evaluate the community progress of the project and, more importantly, identified where the weakest points were. This helped guide the allocation of community focused resources within the projects and their mentors. I've never introduced this here because I believe volunteers would find the idea of measuring (or worse being measured) distasteful. Indeed we never told the projects of the results of their evaluation, or even that we were doing them for this reason. We just used them as internal tools. Here in the ASF I don't think there is such a strong need for these tools. In principle our mentors should know what to focus on next, they shouldn't need the tool, they have personal experience. Nevertheless, as the incubator has grown we have found that differences of opinion about the best way to do things result in very confused messages for our podlings. Whilst I don't think using a formal evaluation tool is a good idea here, I do think documentation of the mentoring process around the kind of evaluations we did would be a good idea. We don't need all projects applying guidelines in exactly the same way, but we do need some consistency in the generic advice we give podlings. It is for this reason I asked (elsewhere) for the nominees for the PMC chair to describe how they would like to work with ComDev moving forwards. I would be happy for ComDev to help in this regard, I have not spoken to the ComDev PMC as I still don't have the concise statement of intent that I requested. Ross Completing such a task will be a lot of work, and who knows what complications and disagreements lie ahead? We have an incremental solution in front of us which mitigates some of our most pressing problems: the measured expansion of Joe Schaefer's successful experiment to add PPMC Members who have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Apache Way to the IPMC. I don't support this boil-the-ocean revamp if it blocks the less ambitious reforms. An indefinite period where release votes continue to drag on for weeks is unacceptable. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t thoughts/positioning below. On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. You mention also No need for the position anymore. Just another report to have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1. What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to Fill this in, and we'll submit these things. This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution in their lives, the VP is there to assist. The VP keeps the files on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter Your proposal should state formal documentation. Think in terms of ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic cop, but a tourist guide. It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting. So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation. It can't be left in a hundred different hands to drop. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Greg, On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote: Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t thoughts/positioning below. I was in sort of concurrence as well. I think what you guys are proposing is that you want to keep the Incubator VP around to manage/oversee the implementation of my proposal to deconstruct the Incubator. Let's say for 6 months or something, while it's implemented. Is that fair? If that's the case, I'm +1 to keep the position around, and I'm +1 to fill the role and implement the proposal and be the person responsible for reporting out on it to the board. Cheers, Chris On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. You mention also No need for the position anymore. Just another report to have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1. What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to Fill this in, and we'll submit these things. This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution in their lives, the VP is there to assist. The VP keeps the files on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter Your proposal should state formal documentation. Think in terms of ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic cop, but a tourist guide. It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting. So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation. It can't be left in a hundred different hands to drop. - 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 ++ 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
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t thoughts/positioning below. While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing, and able to execute on such? Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan. Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of such an effort. But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary, particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value? I can't answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond dissolution of IPMC, and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue. That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even in the fastest of plans to begin adopting Foo Project, Incubating TLPs. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill, On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t thoughts/positioning below. While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing, and able to execute on such? Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan. +1. Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of such an effort. Thanks a lot. But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary, particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value? I can't answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond dissolution of IPMC, and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue. Yeah to be honest, I have 2 other officer positions (OODT + Tika) and am active in a lot of other projects. So as today, I'd say, if you want that VP, Incubation role (as the dude who will execute the plan, and who will be accountable for it) to continue beyond 6 months, then I would likely have to be replaced then. But who knows what 6 months time will bring anyways with respect to my feelings. Dunno. I like your attitude though -- if I need to be replaced then, replace me. No biggie. That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even in the fastest of plans to begin adopting Foo Project, Incubating TLPs. +1, precisely. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
I believe there is a minor typo below: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t thoughts/positioning below. While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing, and able to execute on such? Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan. I may be misreading or not following, but I see the original (now elided) description as being at least subtly different than what Chris is proposing. What we currently have is a Incubator. The board sees the list of members of that PMC as those who oversee the entire project. The Incubator sees the list of members of itself as mentors to various podlings who need not have any additional role. I saw what Bill described as fixing that by more closely aligning what the Incubator sees itself with how the Board sees the incubator. The net effect would be a much smaller list of IPMC members. I see what Chris described as reducing the IPMC members to zero. There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press or...). In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the PPMC to work with this group. ^^ should be IPMC, I believe. (and FWIW, this is the model that I believe we should move to; in a couple years, we may find this new-IPMC can be phased out, but I'd like to see the new model well-tested first) This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would continue indefinitely. This (at least to me) doesn't seem to be something that Chris is signing up for. Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of such an effort. +1 But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary, particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value? I can't answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond dissolution of IPMC, and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue. hasn't convinced him of its value is evidence that what you are describing is different than what Chis is proposing. Hence, my question: is there anybody willing to sign up for what you are describing? I ask this is something I would support. That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even in the fastest of plans to begin adopting Foo Project, Incubating TLPs. I'm not so sure. Chris is talking about reducing the Incubator to zero in a matter of months. - 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: Incubator, or Incubation?
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press or...). In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the PPMC to work with this group. This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would continue indefinitely. IMO, that sounds like ComDev. ComDev was created, at least in part, to complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press or...). In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the PPMC to work with this group. This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would continue indefinitely. IMO, that sounds like ComDev. ComDev was created, at least in part, to complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status. +1, Roy. In my proposal, that is ComDev. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press or...). In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the PPMC to work with this group. This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would continue indefinitely. IMO, that sounds like ComDev. ComDev was created, at least in part, to complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status. +1, Roy. In my proposal, that is ComDev. And the proposed edit doesn't change ComDev's role one bit in terms of the documentation of ASF project documentation, either. The only proposed edit if the board desires would be to retain a VP, Project Incubation as the board's agent in making things happen when the champion/mentors are less familiar with the technical details, and align the day to day process of incubation to address the board's ever evolving requirements and concerns. Think of VP, Project Incubation as the Board's and ComDev's agent for change as it becomes necessary. Like VP, Java Community it would be a stub/inactive placeholder most of the rest of the time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press or...). In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the PPMC to work with this group. This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would continue indefinitely. IMO, that sounds like ComDev. ComDev was created, at least in part, to complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status. chuckle whether that resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not [1] That being said, I would want to verify that the ComDev chair agreed before I would support such a change. If so, I'm in. Roy - Sam Ruby [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201202.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8HTFBDxqwT_3_oKeD67y_dPzdZLAtH9WG8Nmy0CgY3J1Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press or...). In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the PPMC to work with this group. This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would continue indefinitely. IMO, that sounds like ComDev. ComDev was created, at least in part, to complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status. Nope. ComDev was created to manage GSoC and other such activities. That being said, it is true that we have found it helpful to create a different type of documentation to support that goal. whether that resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not [1] That being said, I would want to verify that the ComDev chair agreed before I would support such a change. If so, I'm in. So would I (as ComDev chair ;-) I just posted elsewhere on this topic with a new subject. This part of the discussion can go there. Thanks for highlighting this Sam. Ross Roy - Sam Ruby [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201202.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8HTFBDxqwT_3_oKeD67y_dPzdZLAtH9WG8Nmy0CgY3J1Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Isn't there also something along the lines of what's called culpable deniability? Since podlings may be in states where their offerings might not be as legal as TLPs (licensing issues, trademark/branding issues, etc.), is it not more convenient for them to be relegated to an area specifically designated as not officially supported? This is very clearly demarked by a subdomain and a subproject, and if there's to be a subdomain and a subproject it makes sense that there are people specifically managing them. I submit that the IPMC is an effect of the incubator rather than a cause. I think the mechanisms need to be in place so that not-yet-legal projects can exist and work on becoming legal projects, and that it's just as well that staff exists to manage them. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Greg, First off, thanks for commenting on this. My replies below: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ... VP Project Incubation works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team works with all the individual projects as a resource, but isn't responsible for the oversight of individual project security defects. Yeah, I get what you're saying. You say the VP Incubator is a resource, but to me the role is the head of a committee that just adds extra burden and overhead to what should inherently be distributed and decentralized. I don't see this working without an appointed coordinator. I do :) just with the coordinating living within the project, just like TLPs, and that's the Champion/VP of the podling. This proposal creates a differentiation between normal TLPs and incubating TLPs. I honestly didn't mean to do that, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I don't want to distinguish between them. Let's just say that they are projects like any other projects, with the following principles: 1. In the Incubator proposal used to run by the membership to create the project, at least 3 of the initial PMC members must be ASF members. 2. A proposed VP (or Champion either name is fine with me) should be identified as part of the submitted proposal. That is the PMC chair, until otherwise changed by board resolution just like any other project. The incubating TLPs have extra restrictions on them (branding, releases, etc), and they need extra tracking to determine whether they are ready to graduate. This is true, but in reality they aren't extra restrictions they are simply specific brand guidance, given to any other TLP, along with the special Incubator stuff. I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. Mailing lists need somebody to own them, too, or they end up in a weird state. This new-fangled Incubator group would be the owner of the general@ list where proposals come in and are discussed. Yeah I agree, but can't we say that ComDev owns general@incubator after my proposal is implemented? And yes, I forgot to specify this initially well didn't forget, I just didn't think of it, so thanks for you and Bill and for discussion to help flesh it out. I'd like to add that to my proposal. ComDev owns general@incubator. The VP of an incubating-TLP has ASF experience, but is otherwise just another peer on the PMC and is the liaison with the Board. I'm not sure that it makes sense to give them these extra burden[s] that you're talking about. I think it's the same burdens that all VPs get, which is what the projects should be striving for from day 1. We always have this odd situation in the Incubator to date when a new project starts, especially with an elected chair that isn't used to interacting with the board. There's some knowledge that has to be gained, so outright even after graduation the podling has some learning to do under the existing method and so does its VP once it becomes TLP. Let's start that learning, day 1, and get them interacting and just call them regular projects. As Bill stated, before the Incubator, this is what you guys did anyways. I'm just saying let's go back to that in the ASF, WITH the added benefit that now the Incubator over its lifespan has delivered to us, the foundation: 1. a set of awesome guidelines, policies, procedures and documentation. Its new home will be ComDev. ComDev does that anyways like you said, and I agree with that. 2. a process, a great process that new projects coming into the ASF should follow to start operating as ASF TLPs, from the get go. 3. great knowledge and discussion forever archived fleshing out the boundary cases of many of the parts of our foundation. Thank you Incubator for this. That being said, with 1-3, some help from ComDev (which I think they
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. You mention also No need for the position anymore. Just another report to have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1. What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to Fill this in, and we'll submit these things. This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution in their lives, the VP is there to assist. The VP keeps the files on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter Your proposal should state formal documentation. Think in terms of ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic cop, but a tourist guide. It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting. So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation. It can't be left in a hundred different hands to drop. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:25 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. Sorry I have a big mouth :) Thanks for breaking it down. Comments below. Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. You mention also No need for the position anymore. Just another report to have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1. What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to Fill this in, and we'll submit these things. Yeah I could see this VP actually being of some use, if it's 1 guy who assumes that responsibility. I just cringe when I think of a VP and a committee of well intended [fill in the blank here] people who care and... blah blah blah. We don't have this extra need for the rest of our TLPs some of which include a chair that has never heard of the board@ list, nor all of the little nitty-gritty stuff that has to be done. But somehow, some way, they make it. My supposition is that they make it because there are N ASF members and some subset of those N that have done it before or seen it done before and they guide the new chair (out of Incubation) for the new project and tell him how to get it done. That's what I just did on Gora and what I regularly see done in other projects. I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing is the following: You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps a committee/or not) to help out these projects-from-day-1-new-projects that will be coming into the ASF, and that you need information flow up from that guy and responsibility/culpability from that guy to the board, and on down from it. I, on the other hand, feel that the N(=3?) ASF members that have to be part of the new project's PMC from day 1, and that that new project's VP (from day 1), are sufficient to provide that information flow up, and responsibility/culpability. And guidance. And pointers to ASF resources like ComDev (which will hold the Incubator docs), like Legal, like etc. Just like the way it works today on our projects. This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution in their lives, the VP is there to assist. The VP keeps the files on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter Your proposal should state formal documentation. Think in terms of ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic cop, but a tourist guide. Yep I agree with both paragraphs above; it's just to me you can s/Incubation VP/new Project's VP + 3 ASF PMC members that are part of it. It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP would step in to guide the
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing is the following: You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps a committee/or not) to help out these projects-from-day-1-new-projects that will be coming into the ASF, and that you need information flow up from that guy and responsibility/culpability from that guy to the board, and on down from it. Nope, that VP would not be a flow-through. Not even visible when things are working optimally; I, on the other hand, feel that the N(=3?) ASF members that have to be part of the new project's PMC from day 1, and that that new project's VP (from day 1), are sufficient to provide that information flow up, and responsibility/culpability. And guidance. And pointers to ASF resources like ComDev (which will hold the Incubator docs), like Legal, like etc. Just like the way it works today on our projects. Exactly. When those N(=3) mentors don't have it together, this VP can step in to facilitate. Those mentors have to follow this VP's documented process flow established to expedite things for the board's benefit. When (not if) the process changes and evolves, it's on this VP to make the necessary modifications. But that VP won't be a gating factor if the mentors are experienced with the process. Responsibility for incubating projects is /not/ on the VP. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:33 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing is the following: You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps a committee/or not) to help out these projects-from-day-1-new-projects that will be coming into the ASF, and that you need information flow up from that guy and responsibility/culpability from that guy to the board, and on down from it. Nope, that VP would not be a flow-through. Not even visible when things are working optimally; OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? You might say: For when things go wrong. I'll say: - in the case that things go wrong, it's up to the committee to: - fix itself (elect a new chair, fork and tell us where to stick it; decide to attic themselves, etc.) - if it can't fix itself, it's the board's problem and they will fix it (with their bazooka and tank). - part of that committee includes N=3 ASF members (at least). If they can't fix it, and if they can't figure out how to elect a new chair, what is it a committee for anyways? Send it to the Attic; tell them to take a walk; whatever. This isn't divide and conquer. The responsibility *is* there. It's with the incoming Project's VP who like any other VP will be the eyes and ears of the board until replaced, death, resignation or whatever that long list on the resolutions consists of; I forget right now. I, on the other hand, feel that the N(=3?) ASF members that have to be part of the new project's PMC from day 1, and that that new project's VP (from day 1), are sufficient to provide that information flow up, and responsibility/culpability. And guidance. And pointers to ASF resources like ComDev (which will hold the Incubator docs), like Legal, like etc. Just like the way it works today on our projects. Exactly. When those N(=3) mentors don't have it together, this VP can step in to facilitate. If those N=3 don't have it together, then the committee will realize it, just like any other committee. Or it won't realize it and the board will when the reports start to suck or have red flags in them. This is no different than a TLP today. Those mentors have to follow this VP's documented process flow established to expedite things for the board's benefit. When (not if) the process changes and evolves, it's on this VP to make the necessary modifications. Agreed with everything above; it's just not owned by this VP. It's the process flow of the foundation; owned by its members, operated by its board of directors and shared by its community. But that VP won't be a gating factor if the mentors are experienced with the process. Responsibility for incubating projects is /not/ on the VP. +1 to that should this VP be created which would definitely be against my will :) I hold out hope I can convince us of adding another officer position instead of trying this without one like it was pre 2002. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that -- you see the process as (inevitably) evolving. I see it as basically done, with so little revision it hardly warrants the creation of an officer to oversee it. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
My overall thoughts on this subject is that it is interesting to see Bill participating in a discussion that more or less amounts to knocking down the cathedral we've erected here and replacing it with a bazaar. Personally I'm not willing to walk with you guys down that route just yet, but the thinking behind the experiment I've been talking about was to just tweakthe cathedral with a hybrid outdoor market model. Interesting discussion to watch tho, especially if it starts to bear fruit. From: Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov To: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net Cc: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Incubator, or Incubation? Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that -- you see the process as (inevitably) evolving. I see it as basically done, with so little revision it hardly warrants the creation of an officer to oversee it. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hi Joe, On Feb 2, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: My overall thoughts on this subject is that it is interesting to see Bill participating in a discussion that more or less amounts to knocking down the cathedral we've erected here and replacing it with a bazaar. Personally I'm not willing to walk with you guys down that route just yet, but the thinking behind the experiment I've been talking about was to just tweakthe cathedral with a hybrid outdoor market model. Thanks yep that's basically it. I have found your experiment successful; need no more data points; have found the Incubator itself over its lifespan to have been successful, and am looking to focus scarce Apache attention and resources towards the future, celebrating with respect towards the past, but also recognizing where we need to go as a foundation. We don't need to ope any more outdoor markets; we already have a successful bazaar in front of us! Cheers, Chris From: Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov To: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net Cc: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Incubator, or Incubation? Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that -- you see the process as (inevitably) evolving. I see it as basically done, with so little revision it hardly warrants the creation of an officer to oversee it. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - 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: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey folks, I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to reorganize things. Before digging in, I suggest we abstract out a little bit to see if we have consensus on the overall goals and desired end state before starting to debate the details, or the process by which to get there. 1) There are people who produce guides, rules and policy that describe the incubation process. These rules are then imposed on other groups at apache by board decree. 2) At any point in time, there shall be many groups of people following the incubation process. 3) There is a mechanism in place to provide oversight over all the different ongoing incubations. 4) The differences between communities going through incubation and those that aren't is clear and understood by all (including end users, press, etc). I think the above invariants describe both incubation as of yesterday and incubation as of tomorrow. But, we have some issues with the current incubator. a) The volume of incubation activity has grown such that oversight is difficult. b) Large group sizes (particularly general@ and IPMC roster) make accountability and consensus-building difficult. c) meritocracy is hampered by having the people doing the work not having binding votes on their own work. d) ... add your own similar issues ... The basic realization is that combining all the people from 1) and 2) into effectively one big group [1] is no longer the best idea. So, we want to redesign how we organize into groups, and associated with that we want to tune our oversight mechanisms. The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? The next steps then involve deciding just how to split things up. Since I'm off to go skiing tomorrow I won't be around next week to participate in the details of all that. Have fun :-) cheerio, Leo [1] the choice of the vague term 'group' is intentional: give us some degrees of freedom to design the structure, in a formal *and* an informal sense. One kind of group is a PMC, but there's also another kind of group which is people subscribed to a mailing list and another one people that read the stuff that's on the mailing list and another which is people who feel responsible for what's going on on that mailing list, etc. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote: On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have much to say against that. Note that it should effect all of the decision guidelines that give veto power, not just personnel decisions. Isn't that the problem right now though? Like it or not, the Incubator PMC has evolved into a mini-board, in the worse sense of the word. You guys have a monthly meeting via telecon; an agenda; a set of action items, and you still don't get everything that you want to get done, done. A very small percentage of folks within the IPMC actually maintain that type of board-like oversight over its podlings. And thus, because of that, the more I think about it, quite honestly, I don't know what the Incubator PMC is doing other than delay the inveitable eventuality that many of these projects will graduate and become TLPs and thus the board's problem; whereas many of them will not graduate, and become not Apache's problem. We have an Attic for projects that make it to TLP for that. Heck, we have SVN and could even reboot Incubator dead projects if a group of individuals came along and wanted to maintain the code. My conclusion from all the ruckus recently has been that the Incubator PMC is nothing more than an Incubator mailing list where many ASF veterans and those that care about the foundation discuss (and sometimes argue) about the foundation's policies and interpretations of law that not even lawyers are perfect at -- we're all human yet we try and get on our high horse here and act like we speak in absolutes and the will of one or a small subset is the will of the many when we all know that in the end, if it's not fun anymore, we wouldn't be here. What would be so bad about saying that the Incubator, over its existence, has served its purpose and has devolved into an umbrella project of the type that we are looking to get rid of at the Foundation. I agree with Bill on the perspective that I'm sure at some point (and it's probably already
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
I like this general direction as well; seems much more manageable. +1. Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote: Hey folks, I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to reorganize things. Before digging in, I suggest we abstract out a little bit to see if we have consensus on the overall goals and desired end state before starting to debate the details, or the process by which to get there. 1) There are people who produce guides, rules and policy that describe the incubation process. These rules are then imposed on other groups at apache by board decree. 2) At any point in time, there shall be many groups of people following the incubation process. 3) There is a mechanism in place to provide oversight over all the different ongoing incubations. 4) The differences between communities going through incubation and those that aren't is clear and understood by all (including end users, press, etc). I think the above invariants describe both incubation as of yesterday and incubation as of tomorrow. But, we have some issues with the current incubator. a) The volume of incubation activity has grown such that oversight is difficult. b) Large group sizes (particularly general@ and IPMC roster) make accountability and consensus-building difficult. c) meritocracy is hampered by having the people doing the work not having binding votes on their own work. d) ... add your own similar issues ... The basic realization is that combining all the people from 1) and 2) into effectively one big group [1] is no longer the best idea. So, we want to redesign how we organize into groups, and associated with that we want to tune our oversight mechanisms. The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? The next steps then involve deciding just how to split things up. Since I'm off to go skiing tomorrow I won't be around next week to participate in the details of all that. Have fun :-) cheerio, Leo [1] the choice of the vague term 'group' is intentional: give us some degrees of freedom to design the structure, in a formal *and* an informal sense. One kind of group is a PMC, but there's also another kind of group which is people subscribed to a mailing list and another one people that read the stuff that's on the mailing list and another which is people who feel responsible for what's going on on that mailing list, etc. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote: On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have much to say against that. Note that it should effect all of the decision guidelines that give veto power, not just personnel decisions. Isn't that the problem right now though? Like it or not, the Incubator PMC has evolved into a mini-board, in the worse sense of the word. You guys have a monthly meeting via telecon; an agenda; a set of action items, and you still don't get everything that you want to get done, done. A very small percentage of folks within the IPMC actually maintain that type of board-like oversight over its podlings. And thus, because of that, the more I think about it, quite honestly, I don't know what the Incubator PMC is doing other than delay the inveitable eventuality that many of these projects will graduate and become TLPs and thus the board's problem; whereas many of them will not graduate, and become not Apache's problem. We have an Attic for projects that make it to TLP for that. Heck, we have SVN and could even reboot Incubator dead projects if a group of individuals came along and wanted to maintain the code. My conclusion from all the ruckus recently has been that the Incubator PMC is nothing more than an Incubator mailing list where many ASF veterans and those that care about the foundation discuss (and sometimes argue) about the foundation's policies and interpretations of law that not even lawyers are perfect at -- we're all human yet we try and get on our high horse here and act like we speak in absolutes and the will of one or a small subset is the will of the many when we all know that in the end, if it's not fun anymore, we wouldn't be here. What would be so bad about saying that the Incubator, over its existence, has served its purpose and
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote: The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? Completing such a task will be a lot of work, and who knows what complications and disagreements lie ahead? We have an incremental solution in front of us which mitigates some of our most pressing problems: the measured expansion of Joe Schaefer's successful experiment to add PPMC Members who have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Apache Way to the IPMC. I don't support this boil-the-ocean revamp if it blocks the less ambitious reforms. An indefinite period where release votes continue to drag on for weeks is unacceptable. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
I don't think one approach precludes the other. Agreed that incubator needs to keep going in the interim. Perhaps we can spin off groups one at a time, starting with just one to get the bugs worked out? Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote: The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? Completing such a task will be a lot of work, and who knows what complications and disagreements lie ahead? We have an incremental solution in front of us which mitigates some of our most pressing problems: the measured expansion of Joe Schaefer's successful experiment to add PPMC Members who have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Apache Way to the IPMC. I don't support this boil-the-ocean revamp if it blocks the less ambitious reforms. An indefinite period where release votes continue to drag on for weeks is unacceptable. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have much to say against that. Note that it should effect all of the decision guidelines that give veto power, not just personnel decisions. Isn't that the problem right now though? Like it or not, the Incubator PMC has evolved into a mini-board, in the worse sense of the word. You guys have a monthly meeting via telecon; an agenda; a set of action items, and you still don't get everything that you want to get done, done. A very small percentage of folks within the IPMC actually maintain that type of board-like oversight over its podlings. And thus, because of that, the more I think about it, quite honestly, I don't know what the Incubator PMC is doing other than delay the inveitable eventuality that many of these projects will graduate and become TLPs and thus the board's problem; whereas many of them will not graduate, and become not Apache's problem. We have an Attic for projects that make it to TLP for that. Heck, we have SVN and could even reboot Incubator dead projects if a group of individuals came along and wanted to maintain the code. My conclusion from all the ruckus recently has been that the Incubator PMC is nothing more than an Incubator mailing list where many ASF veterans and those that care about the foundation discuss (and sometimes argue) about the foundation's policies and interpretations of law that not even lawyers are perfect at -- we're all human yet we try and get on our high horse here and act like we speak in absolutes and the will of one or a small subset is the will of the many when we all know that in the end, if it's not fun anymore, we wouldn't be here. What would be so bad about saying that the Incubator, over its existence, has served its purpose and has devolved into an umbrella project of the type that we are looking to get rid of at the Foundation. I agree with Bill on the perspective that I'm sure at some point (and it's probably already happened), we will experience Jakarta type symptoms and potentially may go down that road. Instead of couching it as scary HUGE change that several Apache vets have expressed to me that the Foundation doesn't like, how about we don't call it a change at all; and simply a success. IOW, the Incubator itself has graduated and it's time for it to be Attic'ed. In replacement, I propose the following concrete actions: 1. Move the Incubator process/policy/documentation, etc., to ComDev - I agree with gstein on this. I think it could be maintained by the ASF community folks there, and updated over time. But it's not vastly or rapidly changing really anymore. 2. Discharge the Incubator PMC and the role of Incubator VP -- pat everyone on the back, go have a beer, watch the big game together, whatever. Call it a success, not a failure. 3. Suggest at the board level that an Incubation process still exists at Apache, in the same way that it exists today. New projects write a proposal, the proposal is VOTEd on by the board at the board's next monthly meeting, and those that cannot be are QUEUED for the next meeting, or VOTEd on during out of board inbetween time on board@. Refer those wanting to Incubate at Apache to the existing Incubator documentation maintained by the ComDev community. Tell them to ask questions there, about the process, about what to do, or if ideas make sense. But *not* to VOTE on whether they are accepted or not. 4. Require every podling to have at least 3 ASF members on it, similar to the current Incubator process. 5. Operate podlings *exactly the same* as a TLP. There is a chair. There is a committee. Committee members have binding VOTEs on releases. I'm sure folks will argue this is blasphemy or that it will just add to the board's work, or that I'm ugly ... whatever. The fact of the matter is we kick spinning around in circle's trying to fix process issues that have been band-aided for years and that are now leaking like a sieve whenever we decide it's time to shine a light on them. When things are going well in the Incubator, it's not because they are well. It's because no one is asking questions and they've chosen to ignore some of the gaping holes on the poor wounded body that remains. And then when some folks go and point out the gaping holes, we get these huge song and dances that don't amount to anything other than the old mantra incremental change; don't rock the boat too much; XXX board member won't go for it; not here at Apache. Whatever. I think the board knows there is an issue with the Incubator. A lot of IPMC members do too. Some of us have spoken up; others
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ... This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at the advice of a small iPMC. In other words, a project is born when three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate by the small iPMC, are constituted as a project by the board, with one (the recently invented champion) as the chair. It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: that's what the Board's formal feedback to the IPMC just now is about. So, under this scheme, the particular mentors that make up the initial PMC of a project are the ones the Board is trusting, and if any step down, they absolutely need to be replaced. I support proposing this structure to the Board, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the answer is 'no'. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: [...snip large thought...please check archives here to see it: http://s.apache.org/S0i ] Anyways I could type more but I think I've beat this horse to death. I appeal to you and to the rest of the board members reading this thread will consider my proposal. Thanks for reading. --Chris, who I'll note *does* care about the IPMC and *does* care a ton about Apache and the folks here and our hallowed status as an awesome open source organization. Giving this thread all due consideration, with its own subject; Thanks Bill. I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very small operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions. Some amount of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee. I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is. Take VP, Project Incubation out of the role of judging incoming or graduating projects. Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience). Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors. Make a choice between including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and somewhat predictable flowchart. Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost their mentors. This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset on established projects. Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP. If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements above and think they jive with my proposal. Why? Given the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held, and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have done internal harm. Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals and cast such votes. That's OK, they are still representative of the membership. If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the proposed project. Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than served their purpose. In short, all incoming projects continue into an Incubation phase as we all understand it, subject to additional scrutiny and oversight by a collection of mentors and additional scrutiny by the board, reflected in their monthly and then quarterly report. A scorecard continues for the incubating projects of the milestones they must reach to graduate into a full fledged project. +1. And we can even continue to restrict them to an incubation.apache.org domain until they reach that milestone. Meh, I don't think that matters, honestly. If they want to be newfoo.apache.org, who cares, so long as they are following the website and trademarks guidelines for what the website should say aka *large bold words* saying Incubation :) But they are plugged in from day one into the same array of services offered by Board/Legal/Infrastructure/Press/Trademarks/ComDev/ConCom with mentors to help them navigate. Beyond VP, Project Incubation, we will probably uncover other obvious services that the ASF should provide as a VP or committee of peers to nurture incoming podlings into successful, healthy projects. Yep, agreed with the above, minus the VP Incubation (or Incubator VP role), and associated committee. There's no need for it. Every previous restriction on incubating podlings has been eliminated over the past 8 years. There is no reason to continue the incubator committee as an ombudsman, when every issue that applies to each incubating podling simultaneously applies to each established project. Yep, and there's no reason to continue the Incubator committee, period. Thanks for the comments BIll. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Benson, On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ... This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at the advice of a small iPMC. Yea Bill's amendments keeping the VP Incubator and the small IPMC do, but I'd say, those aren't necessary, we don't need them. Looks like Bill and I pretty much agree on everything else, and reading ahead below, so do you for the most part? In other words, a project is born when three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate by the small iPMC, s/small IPMC/membership of the foundation/ are constituted as a project by the board, with one (the recently invented champion) as the chair. +1 It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: It certainly makes your proposal about mentor qualifications important, yes. But I wouldn't say that the 2nd part naturally follows. Why wouldn't the board want to supervise podlings? IOW, what's the difference between ~100 Apache projects, versus ~150? We're going to grow to 150 some-day anyways and I bet we'll still have a board of 9 directors. that's what the Board's formal feedback to the IPMC just now is about. So, under this scheme, the particular mentors that make up the initial PMC of a project are the ones the Board is trusting, and if any step down, they absolutely need to be replaced. Yep that's true, Benson. I support proposing this structure to the Board, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the answer is 'no'. We'll see, I've learned not to make predictions *grin* Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ... This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at the advice of a small iPMC. No. Forget IPMC. The VP, Project Incubation and their committee doesn't advise, the members as a whole do, and propose the initial list of mentors. general@ doesn't change, it's still the place for 'me, too!' offers to mentor an incoming proposal. But yes, that set of mentors provides the initial guidance to the project and is responsible for reporting to the board. As a board reporting committee, the board too also has supervision based on those reports. One thing that does not change; every ASF member has oversight privilage over most every private list at the ASF, including our current PPMC and new Incubating PMC private lists. In other words, a project is born when three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate by the small iPMC, are constituted as a project by the board, with one (the recently invented champion) as the chair. When 3+ mentors step up on general, the members participating on general@ give something approaching consensus, the VP, Project Incubation simply submits a resolution and the board takes it up and passes it (as is, or amended). And yes, the champion is the logical first-chair until the project graduates or they are replaced for other reasons. The board could also take up a resolution to charter an Incubating PMC without the advisory vote on general@. That is a bit different than today, when imposing a podling onto Incubator would be somewhat absurd. It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: that's what the Board's formal feedback to the IPMC just now is about. So, under this scheme, the particular mentors that make up the initial PMC of a project are the ones the Board is trusting, and if any step down, they absolutely need to be replaced. Bingo :) I support proposing this structure to the Board, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the answer is 'no'. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/1/2012 5:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: It certainly makes your proposal about mentor qualifications important, yes. But I wouldn't say that the 2nd part naturally follows. Why wouldn't the board want to supervise podlings? IOW, what's the difference between ~100 Apache projects, versus ~150? We're going to grow to 150 some-day anyways and I bet we'll still have a board of 9 directors. Today, the board reviews some 30 reports, one of which is many pages long. Under the proposed schema the board might review some 50 reports, each of which is several paragraphs long, and the net length of the monthly board report doesn't change at all. Even the two or three paragraphs of commentary usually offered by the VP would still be there, observing the comings and goings of general@ activity. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very small operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions. Some amount of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee. I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is. Simply, there needs to be someone (backed by a committee with specific individual responsibilities, if that person likes) to shepherd state changes into a board resolutions, ensure they hit the board agenda, maintain what we call the 'incubation web site' today, and answer inquiries about 'how do we go about X?' You can suggest that the directors, members and site-dev people take on all of those tasks, but we know that randomly distributed responsibilities don't work out so well. That's why there is now a collection of these VP roles at the ASF. Take VP, Project Incubation out of the role of judging incoming or graduating projects. Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience). Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors. Make a choice between including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and somewhat predictable flowchart. Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost their mentors. This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset on established projects. Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP. If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements above and think they jive with my proposal. I view this more as giving the members the opportunity to raise questions and issues of how a particular project proposal would fit here, which is what they do anyways. This only makes it more formal. You keep the VP simply as the record keeper and executor of the decisions on general@. Why? Given the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held, and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have done internal harm. Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals and cast such votes. That's OK, they are still representative of the membership. If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the proposed project. Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than served their purpose. Well, the scope of general@ shrinks dramatically, although it can continue to be a place for a recently approved project to holler help, we need more help!. You might view the VP as overlapping the Champion. But do we want every one of the Champions to have to be intimately familiar with the form of the board resolutions, or consolidate some of the book-keeping? VP Project Incubation works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team works with all the individual projects as a resource, but isn't responsible for the oversight of individual project security defects. I don't see this working without an appointed coordinator. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very small operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions. Some amount of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee. I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is. Simply, there needs to be someone (backed by a committee with specific individual responsibilities, if that person likes) to shepherd state changes into a board resolutions, ensure they hit the board agenda, maintain what we call the 'incubation web site' today, and answer inquiries about 'how do we go about X?' You can suggest that the directors, members and site-dev people take on all of those tasks, but we know that randomly distributed responsibilities don't work out so well. That's why there is now a collection of these VP roles at the ASF. But I didn't suggest those set of people. You did. And I purposefully didn't suggest them just as you purposefully threw them up as people you wouldn't think were right for the role to illustrate your point. As you hint at below (and that's where I'll respond), my proposal suggests empowering the actual chairs of the committees of podlings as those responsible. That's the role of the Champion and it's no different than the role of a VP, let's be done with it and say the Champion is the initial Podling VP, subject to the same rigamarole and replaceability, rotation, whatever that any chair is. The point is: podlings can start acting like projects from day 1, that's what we encourage. They *are* projects. And if they aren't, we'll find out soon enough. Take VP, Project Incubation out of the role of judging incoming or graduating projects. Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience). Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors. Make a choice between including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and somewhat predictable flowchart. Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost their mentors. This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset on established projects. Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP. If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements above and think they jive with my proposal. I view this more as giving the members the opportunity to raise questions and issues of how a particular project proposal would fit here, which is what they do anyways. This only makes it more formal. You keep the VP simply as the record keeper and executor of the decisions on general@. I agree with your sentiments towards the membership's role. However, I maintain, I still don't think you need the VP of the Incubator; it's just extra overhead that's not needed. Why? Given the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held, and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have done internal harm. Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals and cast such votes. That's OK, they are still representative of the membership. If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the proposed project. Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than served their purpose. Well, the scope of general@ shrinks dramatically, although it can continue to be a place for a recently approved project to holler help, we need more help!. +1. Super +1. Yes, I agree. You might view the VP as overlapping the Champion. Yep, I do. But do we want every one of the Champions to have to
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ... VP Project Incubation works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team works with all the individual projects as a resource, but isn't responsible for the oversight of individual project security defects. Yeah, I get what you're saying. You say the VP Incubator is a resource, but to me the role is the head of a committee that just adds extra burden and overhead to what should inherently be distributed and decentralized. I don't see this working without an appointed coordinator. I do :) just with the coordinating living within the project, just like TLPs, and that's the Champion/VP of the podling. This proposal creates a differentiation between normal TLPs and incubating TLPs. The incubating TLPs have extra restrictions on them (branding, releases, etc), and they need extra tracking to determine whether they are ready to graduate. I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) Mailing lists need somebody to own them, too, or they end up in a weird state. This new-fangled Incubator group would be the owner of the general@ list where proposals come in and are discussed. The VP of an incubating-TLP has ASF experience, but is otherwise just another peer on the PMC and is the liaison with the Board. I'm not sure that it makes sense to give them these extra burden[s] that you're talking about. Decentralization is good, but I concur with Bill's analogy to security@ -- a group that helps to start and track the incubation status of some of our TLPs. By the time a TLP is ready to graduate, they might be self-aware enough to self-certify, but I'd be more comfortable with an Incubator group doing the review and recommendation. All this said, I can see an argument to combine this Incubation function/operations with ComDev. Certainly, the latter will have all the education resources. The question is whether the execution is distinct or rolled into ComDev. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
