incubator-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache Wiki <wikidi...@apache.org>
Subject [Incubator Wiki] Update of "IncubatorDeconstructionProposal" by ChrisMattmann
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:07:17 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Incubator Wiki" for change notification.

The "IncubatorDeconstructionProposal" page has been changed by ChrisMattmann:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal

Comment:
Deconstruction of Incubator proposal.

New page:
There's been a lot of discussion about how best to improve the Incubator's current
situation. I present my proposal for how below (this is based on the discussion
largely around this thread: http://s.apache.org/S0i)




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 haven't. I present
above what I feel are concrete steps that could be actioned upon that 
I believe would improve the overall process and bring to light what is
already occuring:

1. podlings are themselves distinct communities and will interpret our 
human laws and Apache doctrine the same as any other human when you
put 10 of them in a room -- in 10 different ways. 

2. podlings are more and more able to pick up on the basic principles of
the Incubator documentation; its legal oversight and its processes. They 
aren't perfect, but neither are any of us. It's pretty good and we've got plenty
of RMs (as evidenced by other discussions) that can produce an Apache
release that hasn't gotten us sued yet.

3. mentors encourage their podlings to operate autonomously. general@ is
often labeled "the wild west" and for good reason. If I went over to HTTPD
and started spewing my OODT nonsense, many of you would scream foul
and blasphemy just like I'd do if you guys came over into OODT and started
flexing "your specific interpretations" of our commonly agreed upon mantra.
That's what general@ is like. I don't think it makes sense, and I think those
mentors who are doing a good job on their projects and those projects
that are doing well would do well the same as TLPs. Many of the other
side conversations around this issue are suggesting that -- why nominate
folks for the IPMC when we could simply graduate the podlings?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cvs-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cvs-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message