incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Radical revamp
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:35:29 GMT
On 08/17/2010 11:39 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>    
>> From: Ross Gardler<rgardler@apache.org>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 8:45:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: Radical revamp
>>
>> On 17/08/2010 13:21, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>      
> [...]
>
>    
>>> Isn't that why we encourage IPMC members to participate  in
>>> discussions about our podlings?  How do we expect people
>>>   to learn without dialog and discussion- by reading our constantly-
>>>   in-need-of-attention docs?
>>>        
>>      
>    
>> We should be trusting our mentors to know when  to ask for help
>> and when to trust their instincts. We should be helping our  mentors
>> understand the boundaries of their expertise. We should be helping
>> mentors understand what mentorship is - it should not be a box ticking
>> exercise.
>>      
> I would be far more convinced that we should be "trusting our mentors"
> if mentors actually participated in writing incubator documentation,
> or engaged constructively in threads like this.  The fact is there
> are no group controls over what a mentor says or does, it's purely
> a voluntary exercise, by people with limited to no training, with no
> direct benefit nor responsiblity related to it.
>
> [...]
>
>    
>> In this very thread a self  confessed newcomer said that their
>> experience of the incubator was just fine.  Then they went on
>> to say that the Apache Way is not about modifying processes
>> to  best fit your individual needs.
>>
>> This, to me, is incorrect.
>>      
> Perhaps.
>
>    
>> The  Apache Way works precisely because we allow projects to
>> change (most) processes  to suit their individual communities.
>> Whilst there are a few invariant processes  to ensure IP is
>> managed properly and communities are meritocratic pretty much
>> everything can be modified on a per proejct/per community basis.
>>
>> That is  the vast majority of processes in the ASF are "best practice"
>> not check lists to  be ticked off.
>>
>> IPMC members should indeed participate in discussions  about
>> "what is the best way to solve problem x within this community",
>> that is  how we learn about best practice. We should *not* be
>> writing more rules to  constrain projects in ways that is not
>> necessary for the Apache Way and is not  necessary for the
>> legal oversight of the foundation.
>>      
> What I've been trying to explain here with my "experiment" is that
> the best way to teach people about the Apache Way is to let them
> experience it for themselves.  We don't actually do that here,
> and I'm trying to push a view that allows us to actually try it
> a little and see what happens.
>
>
>
>    


I've been following this thread, and have another mail written, but not 
posted,
maybe I will at some point... however I find myself trying to understand 
what would
be the key attributes that would make this proposal a wild success, or a 
failure for
a podling. By success, I mean a well run ASF project. The proposal has 
caught my
imagination, but I'm trying to understand the parameters of guidance in 
this model.

To this question, (what will make this model succeed or fail) I find 
myself not coming
to defensible answers... I would love to see thoughts of others on this 
question.

The thread implies it comes down to the 3+ members on the project.

thoughts...

Carl.






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


Mime
View raw message