incubator-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Apache Wiki <>
Subject [Incubator Wiki] Update of "AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis" by BensonMargulies
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:19:49 GMT
Dear Wiki user,

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

The "AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis" page has been changed by BensonMargulies:

  In response to the current march to the Bastille, IPMC-wise, I wanted to try to organize
a set of thoughts about the existing incubator's purpose, warts, and possible future directions.
This is organized by the major responsibilities of the PMC. There are contrasts to the 'no
more incubator' proposal in here. I think that the upshot of this proposal is to offer 'less
incubator' as an alternative to 'no incubator.' You might also read this as offering some
ideas about details of a no-incubator universe.
- = IPMC Responsibilities =
- 1. Groom & Evaluate Proposals for new Podlings
+ = Groom & Evaluate Proposals for new Podlings =
  The IPMC is a the go-to place for incoming projects. Its web site provides a clear target.
It has 'brand presence' in the outside work, and positive brand presence, at that. Just because
we've tired of angry email exchanges (and other more material problems) has not (yet) translated
into the outside world seeing the Incubator as some sort of a crocodile-infested moat around
the ASF.
@@ -28, +27 @@

  That's not the only problem. There's also little to like about the 'throw a rock in the
@general pond and see who crawls out to review the release' process. It would be better if
any given release were to be reviewed by a small, know, group. Like, the mentors of the project?
This, in turn, would require the mentors to include at least one person who understands the
policies and is ready and willing to do the detailed reading. Alternatively, people with special
talents or interests in this area could make themselves available. Critically, once someone
signed up a release reviewer, they would see the process through, so we would drastically
reduce the situation in which each candidate attracts a new reviewer who finds new things
to poke at.
+ = Overall Project Supervision =
+ The board needs to supervise project, and the board has been discontent with the quality
of the IPMC's work on its behalf. On the other hand, I think that we've demonstrated that
a few volunteers within the IPMC can step up and improve this. Chris' proposal is to eliminate
the intermediate layer altogether. Later in this document, I'm going to propose an intermediate
alternative. We have many new projects and are likely to have many more. Is flattening the
structure really the right way to go? At the board level, there has been some sporadic discussion
about how to scale the board's supervision across all the TLP's. Even in this discussion,
Bill Rowe pointed to the need for members to actively serve as the board's eyes and ears.
This could argue either way. If the Foundation got better at scaling supervision, that could
be applied to new projects as well. If it does not, a flood of new TLP's on training wheels
could be a problem.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message