incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:46:30 GMT
Sorry damned iPhone autocorrect. First word should be "I like"

Sent from my mobile device.

On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:38, Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:

> Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board reports
by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to a piece of electronic
paper. 
> 
> Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the project debs want
this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF and the project to proceed. 
> 
> I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of the project
(unless also a committer of course)
> 
> This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about social an
community health not technical health, right?
> 
> Sent from my mobile device.
> 
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> 
>> [ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
>> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
>> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
>> context in for those on general@incubator ]
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>>> 
>>> Hey Justin,
>>> 
>>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>>>> gallery" oversight.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>>>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>>>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>>>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>>> 
>>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
>>> something like:
>>> 
>>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
>>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
>>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
>>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
>>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
>>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
>>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
>>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
>>> IPMC)
>>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
>>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
>>> ready =
>>>  - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>>>  - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
>>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
>>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>>> 
>>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
>>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
>>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
>>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
>>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
>>> up Rishi!).
>>> 
>>> Is that your take too?
>> 
>> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.
>> 
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
>> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
>> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
>> vote?
>> 
>> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
>> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
>> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
>> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
>> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
>> done.
>> 
>> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
>> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
>> it or not.  =)
>> 
>> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
>> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
>> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
>> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
>> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
>> should have a binding vote.
>> 
>> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
>> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>> Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
>> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
>> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
>> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
>> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
>> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
>> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
>> 
>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
>> -- justin
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

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


Mime
View raw message