incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
Date Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:32:40 GMT
I'd like to suggest that whatever rules we come
up with are derived from actual cases we've seen
over our time here.  Robert is not alone by any
stretch, he's just clueful enough to be willing
to be open and honestabout it.

I'd have no problems supporting a podling whose
mentors review their reports and provide feedback
to those podlings about their progress towards
graduation, even if they are 3 years plus into
incubation.  Some things really do take time.
But in the situation with Kato, report after report
parrots the same status spanning over a year
(and yes it's similar in Tashi), with no clear
plan how the project is to continue on its path
towards graduation.

At this point, all I'm suggesting is that someone,
preferably a mentor, open a dialog with Kato

about the hung status, and let the podling make a
decision about what it wants to do, while removing
the option of continuing along with the status quo.
If there's a feasible plan that could lead to graduation,
go for it, but if there's not, then consider retirement.

> From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <>
>To:; Joe Schaefer <> 
>Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:23 PM
>Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but
otherwise happy podlings)]
>On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
>It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of
>>a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open.  Let
>>me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put
>>in the position of judging whether or not a podling is actually
>>making progress or not.  If mentors don't do that, who does?
>>The chair?  A super-committee?  Nobody?
>>While I certainly don't expect you as a mentor to "fix all that
>>is broken in the Incubator" single-handedly, I do expect you
>>to care enough to try and "fix all that is broken" in your podling.
>>It shouldn't take a board member's opinion for you to critically
>>review the reports of your podling and provide them with your own
>>feedback on how they are doing.  That IMO is what you signed up
>>to do as mentor.
>Big +1
>>Why do we need these obscure notions to characterize a failed incubation
>>effort?  Can't we be adults and say it simply didn't work out, no
>>harm no foul, best of luck in your future endeavors elsewhere?
>>I sure hope we aren't going to get into the business of promising
>>zombie projects a perpetual home in the incubator.
>I agree in a general way, but there is a question here, what really defines a failing
project from the Incubator PoV, is that they don't report properly, or they don't grow enough
community, etc... ?
>More specifically for the last point, what is the community is very active but they just
happen not able to get more blood, just because what they do is not appealing to attract more
developers anymore ?
>I know this is related to one of the most important aspects of ASF, that is building a
community around software. But the thing is, why kick them out, as long as they do well, and
if it is about the community growth, we already have the tool for that, that is if project
became dead or in active we put on retire and it is done.
>Briefly what I want to say is that we can not make one general rule and apply on all podlings
that we as IPMC see that they are not doing well. I think it is better to check case by case,
which I know would not be easy.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin <>
>>> To:
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
>>> Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small
but otherwise happy podlings)]
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>>>  On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith <>
>>> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>  I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic
>>> patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way
>>> or the other soon.
>>>>  If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no
>>>>  question, they both have my vote on that question.
>>> As a Kato mentor, I see my role as ensuring that the Foundation is
>>> safe and that Kato is run the Apache Way, not fixing all that's broken
>>> in the Incubator.
>>>>  If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and
>>>>  paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with
>>>>  little or no change, then I strongly object.
>>> ATM Incubation works well only for main sequence projects. The IPMC
>>> has collectively failed to account in its system for podlings that
>>> encounter unusual issues that force them from the sequence.
>>> IMO it is the responsibility of the IPMC to fix the system when it
>>> breaks, not the Mentors of the podling. For month after month, Kato
>>> has been flagged in the reports as stalled but no one in the IPMC
>>> community thought to even discuss how to fix this before now.
>>> (And now the IPMC seems to have brought only one club: terminate any
>>> podling which leaves the main sequence...)
>>> Kato is not the first podling to be stalled. It will not be the last.
>>> A 'parked' status (freezing the podling but allowing an efficient
>>> restart) is IMO the right way to manage this.
>>> Robert
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>- Mohammad Nour
>"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
>- Albert Einstein
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message