pTLP, concretely
For your reading and wrangling pleasure, I offer: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2. The goal of this exercise is to turn the idea of the pTLP into a practical alternative. By 'practical', I mean: 'based on the constraints as I see them'; the board and comdev are not going to find a little bottle labelled 'drink this' and swig away at new responsibilities. I'm not offering this to advocate for it, or against it. My purpose is more to argue that it would be a ton of work. 'Mentors in the Project' in the existing, messy, noisy, IPMC would be a lot less work and has the potential to deliver comparable results on the important issues. But if people want to take this up, or if someone wants to campaign for chair using this as a platform, that would be more productive that discussing the pTLP alternative in the abstract. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP, concretely
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: For your reading and wrangling pleasure, I offer: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2. ... IIUC the main difference (besides subtle naming changes) is that pTLPs vote on their own releases, based on pTLP PMC members who have been accepted by the board? So more work for the board, and each pTLP needs to form an acceptable PMC roster with at least 4-5 members? My thoughts exactly. What this proposal effectively does is pawn off the responsibility of holding mentors accountable to the board. No. The original uncooked pTLP scheme did that. This scheme locates that responsibility in the renamed committee, which serves the board by supervising the pTLPs. They aren't mentors, they are PMC members. - 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: pTLP, concretely
On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: For your reading and wrangling pleasure, I offer: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2. The goal of this exercise is to turn the idea of the pTLP into a practical alternative. By 'practical', I mean: 'based on the constraints as I see them'; the board and comdev are not going to find a little bottle labelled 'drink this' and swig away at new responsibilities. I'm not offering this to advocate for it, or against it. My purpose is more to argue that it would be a ton of work. 'Mentors in the Project' in the existing, messy, noisy, IPMC would be a lot less work and has the potential to deliver comparable results on the important issues. But if people want to take this up, or if someone wants to campaign for chair using this as a platform, that would be more productive that discussing the pTLP alternative in the abstract. IMO, the “noise” comes from the IPMC discussing new processes, roles, etc., when mentors fail to do their jobs. This proposal is essentially a re-boot with the hopes that bad mentors don’t make it into the new world order. What we really need is less rules, less trial bureaucracy mechanisms, less roles, and simple mechanisms to hold mentors accountable to the task that they signed up to perform. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP, concretely
On 5 January 2015 at 14:16, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: For your reading and wrangling pleasure, I offer: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2. The goal of this exercise is to turn the idea of the pTLP into a practical alternative. By 'practical', I mean: 'based on the constraints as I see them'; the board and comdev are not going to find a little bottle labelled 'drink this' and swig away at new responsibilities. I'm not offering this to advocate for it, or against it. My purpose is more to argue that it would be a ton of work. 'Mentors in the Project' in the existing, messy, noisy, IPMC would be a lot less work and has the potential to deliver comparable results on the important issues. But if people want to take this up, or if someone wants to campaign for chair using this as a platform, that would be more productive that discussing the pTLP alternative in the abstract. IMO, the “noise” comes from the IPMC discussing new processes, roles, etc., when mentors fail to do their jobs. This proposal is essentially a re-boot with the hopes that bad mentors don’t make it into the new world order. What we really need is less rules, less trial bureaucracy mechanisms, less roles, and simple mechanisms to hold mentors accountable to the task that they signed up to perform. +1, and dont forget, while keeping the good parts of incubatorespecially the work around learning the apache way. rgds jan i Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP, concretely
On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: For your reading and wrangling pleasure, I offer: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2. ... IIUC the main difference (besides subtle naming changes) is that pTLPs vote on their own releases, based on pTLP PMC members who have been accepted by the board? So more work for the board, and each pTLP needs to form an acceptable PMC roster with at least 4-5 members? -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP, concretely
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...This scheme locates that responsibility in the renamed committee, which serves the board by supervising the pTLPs. They aren't mentors, they are PMC members... Ok, but the board needs to accept those folks, and the incoming pTLP needs to locate 4-5 such folks that the board will accept. I bet that would result in smaller potential projects just fading away, which goes against our inclusive principles. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP, concretely
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...This scheme locates that responsibility in the renamed committee, which serves the board by supervising the pTLPs. They aren't mentors, they are PMC members... Ok, but the board needs to accept those folks, and the incoming pTLP needs to locate 4-5 such folks that the board will accept. I bet that would result in smaller potential projects just fading away, which goes against our inclusive principles. I agree. It painfully obvious (to me) that we don't have enough qualified mentors to handle all the small projects that want to show up. In my view, any move in any direction has to confront this. -Bertrand - 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: pTLP, concretely
On Jan 5, 2015, at 6:15 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:20 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: For your reading and wrangling pleasure, I offer: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2. ... IIUC the main difference (besides subtle naming changes) is that pTLPs vote on their own releases, based on pTLP PMC members who have been accepted by the board? So more work for the board, and each pTLP needs to form an acceptable PMC roster with at least 4-5 members? My thoughts exactly. What this proposal effectively does is pawn off the responsibility of holding mentors accountable to the board. No. The original uncooked pTLP scheme did that. This scheme locates that responsibility in the renamed committee, which serves the board by supervising the pTLPs. They aren't mentors, they are PMC members. A rose by any other name? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP, concretely
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On Jan 5, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...This scheme locates that responsibility in the renamed committee, which serves the board by supervising the pTLPs. They aren't mentors, they are PMC members... Ok, but the board needs to accept those folks, and the incoming pTLP needs to locate 4-5 such folks that the board will accept. I bet that would result in smaller potential projects just fading away, which goes against our inclusive principles. I agree. It painfully obvious (to me) that we don't have enough qualified mentors to handle all the small projects that want to show up. In my view, any move in any direction has to confront this. This, imo, is the crux of the problem. This proposal does not focus on this issue other than to rename the roll. Last comment from me for today: to me, PMC membership, and especially PMC chairship, is a big deal. If you accept it, you accept real responsibility, with real potential legal consequences to the Foundation if you screw it up. There's nothing like that about being a mentor. Legally, today, responsibility for podlings sits with the IPMC chair and the IPMC members, collectively, not with the particular mentors in particular of the particular project,. So, again, to me, the pTLP scheme is very different from the current scheme. It seems that other people don't see this the same way that I do. If the general feeling is that PMC membership is 'a joke' like mentorship is 'a joke', then this scheme of mine is just more standup comedy. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP, concretely
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Last comment from me for today: Thanks very much for continuing to exercise discipline in rate-limiting your communiques, Benson. I dread the prospect of returning to the overheating, rapid-fire IPMC of a few years ago. to me, PMC membership, and especially PMC chairship, is a big deal. If you accept it, you accept real responsibility, with real potential legal consequences to the Foundation if you screw it up. There's nothing like that about being a mentor. Legally, today, responsibility for podlings sits with the IPMC chair and the IPMC members, collectively, not with the particular mentors in particular of the particular project,. So, again, to me, the pTLP scheme is very different from the current scheme. It seems that other people don't see this the same way that I do. If the general feeling is that PMC membership is 'a joke' like mentorship is 'a joke', then this scheme of mine is just more standup comedy. The problem is that exercising that level of responsibility as a PMC member is optional. Some people take it that seriously, and those individuals anchor our projects -- but we have also found that keeping the bar for PMC membership low and offering people a governance stake earlier rather than later has beneficial effects in terms of inclusiveness and motivating contributors. Currently, the Incubator treats Mentorship the same way: the more the merrier, contribute what you can, merit basically never expires. But it doesn't have to be that way. We can require ongoing activity for Mentors and remove those who become inactive. We can limit the maximum number of Mentors, perhaps returning to having only a single Mentor per podling. In fact, I'd say that treating Mentorship differently than PMC membership will be key to addressing the Incubator's structural incentive difficulties. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
