incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: [RT] Community over policy, and similar thoughts
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:42:43 GMT
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Benson Margulies
<> wrote:
> Don,
> I think that place where you, Leo, and Sam meet up is in the
> identification and clarification of *minimal* legal and procedural
> requirements.
> Sam's repeated over and over that he is, in effect, trying to
> establish the minimal level of oversight and supervision of podlings
> (and that the question of what to do about aged or problematic
> podlings is a subsequent community discussion topic). There's been an
> attempt to clarify the minimal requirements for podling releases. And
> my sad attempt to focus a thread was to clarify minimal requirements
> for graduation.

I agree with this, but I would like to reduce it a bit further:

    We all need to talk more.

Yes, talk is frustrating at times, but it is necessary.

I think that we have also identified a structural problem.  The
incubator PMC consists of the set of mentors.  Each mentor is focusing
on their own set of podlings.  I don't see any operational evidence
that anybody here reviews podling reports critically (identifying
issues, tracking them to closure) before forwarding such to the board.

We may also have semantic gaps.  Leo's [RT] may be presuming that a
podling's "board report"[sic] is merely a bureaucratic requirement.
First, I believe that the purpose of reports is to foster
communication.  Furthermore, while the board requires the Incubator
PMC to provide a report, forwarding on podling reports along with a
brief preamble is the way the Incubator PMC has chosen (to date) to
meet that requirement.  While appreciated, there is no board
requirement to forward on podling reports.

Despite the structural problem and semantic gap, we've made progress.
I've learned more about Kato's status in this messy discussion than I
ever did by reviewing the reports provided.  Based on what I have
heard, I do believe that dormant is a good term for the project.
Robert appears to want to identify that some sort of external agent is
responsible for that status.  I actually disagree with this in
principle, but am unlikely to pursue that if we can come to some sort
of consensus on a label for the status.

In any case, I hope somebody beats me to a thorough review of next
month's podling reports, but if not, I intend to repeat the the
process where I provide feedback here before providing feedback that
will ultimately be published on the ASF web site as a part of the ASF
board meetings.

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message