incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: TL;DR
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:39:14 GMT
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> 
>>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>>> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
>>> ComDev."
>> 
>> Ross, I'm not a candidate.  But I certainly don't believe that.
> 
> That's good to hear. I'm desperately trying to catch up with all this.
> It is currently 2:48 AM and I should be in bed.
> 
>> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
>> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
>> board.
> 
> That would be fine except that the board is not a subtle instrument of
> mentoring. It's a sledgehammer. The board will not, I assume, spend
> time working with incubating projects to help them resolve their
> issues. They will say "go sort it out or get out".
> 
> The projects then turn to where?

Themselves? Just like any other project does. And then the
board turns to them, if necessary. But themselves, mostly.

> 
> I believe there are huge cracks in this proposal and it seems to me
> that it will fall to ComDev (via the board) to close the gaps. Maybe
> this is a good thing. But I as chair of that ComDev I want to fully
> understand what is expected of our small committee.

Ross, there are huge cracks in any proposal. I listed something like
5 steps, and some high level topics. Incubator proposals themselves
have huge cracks in them. My proposal was my attempt at doing something
constructive, and in response to a request raised by Bertrand.

So please, stop using FUD as a tactic to raise concern about
this proposal. Sure, there are concerns. There's tons of emails
on list about them. But that doesn't preclude moving forward, 
and you've said that you are OK with it moving forward, so long
as it's incremental. So what are we bantering about?

> 
> I don't like that nobody has asked ComDev if it wants to change.

Greg asked you directly if ComDev wants to change. I also mentioned
the ComDev PMC in several of my emails, including my proposal and
in my original reply to Roy.

You are subscribed
to the Incubator list, I've seen you reply to all these emails, you are
the chair of the ComDev PMC. That nobody "sent an email to the
ComDev" list has not prevented anyone (including yourself) from
doing so as well. 

I'm sorry I haven't "started a thread" over there on ComDev: I'll do 
so after I take the break you suggested I do this weekend. Which
I will (from Apache Incubator stuff). However, I'll be around, working
on other ASF stuff not involving this :)

> It is
> assumed that ComDev will take the documentation. When this was first
> raised by Greg I raised concerns. Specifically ComDev was created to
> manage GSoC and other such activities. As part of this it is supposed
> to direct people to the right place. It is where newcomers come to
> find the right committee list,  the right documentation pages or the
> right mentor.

That's all I'm suggesting, Ross. But that you take the Incubator 
documentation too and just point folks to the existing site even
which we can leave up.

> It is not supposed to be the fountain of all knowledge.
> We are a *very* long way from being where I want us to be in this
> respect.

I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear in my proposal that I don't
expect you guys to be the fountain of all knowledge. I don't.

> 
> I don't like it that the supporters of this proposal are in denial
> about the need for support for failing podlings. If it is not denial,
> if the intention is that failing podlings will be culled then fine,
> state it up-front so we know the issue has been considered (Bill, I
> recognise, you did so in this mail, but you are not a candidate).

I don't know how to make it any more clear than I have, but I 
suppose it could get lost in all the emails on this subject. Here's
your definitive statement: failed podlings should be culled.  Done.

> 
>> Incubator is a many-too-layered onion today, and it
>> seems people keep trying to wrap Chris's proposal in more layers of
>> Onion, because it is insufficiently complex to result in 100 people
>> arguing with one another for days on end.
> 
> I don't know who "people" are, but like Chris you seem to be
> attributing "peoples" opinions to me.

Nope, not you. You're just the recent guy to chime in, so you think
it has to do with you. It doesn't, Ross, it really doesn't. I respect you
wholeheartedly. You rock. 

> 
> All I have said, repeatedly in a number of different ways, is that the
> plan is incomplete and I am concerned that it will be ComDev that has
> to pick up the pieces because this proposal removes all other possible
> support channels when the VP + mentors channel fails.

It's not my intention that that happen. That's why I (perhaps stupidly)
volunteered to actually make sure this proposal happens. Also, 
I'd bet Bill, Benson, and others would also help. So ComDev isn't
going to be the dumping ground. 

> 
> I just want someone to address *my* issue as ComDev chair directly.

You deserve that. 

I updated the proposal trying to show a table that Bill suggested that
shows the transition of responsibility. So far, it only shows you guys
getting responsibility for the documentation. To me, the way it can be
executed is as follows (which hopefully shouldn't be hard):

0. We rename http://incubator.apache.org/ to http://incubation.apache.org/
1. We direct all incoming projects to ComDev (dev@community.a.o
or some other list under ComDev's perview) to ask questions about
Incubator documentation there. 

2. ComDev list gets question: directs folks to http://incubation.apache.org/
(maybe specific page, maybe just the main splash landing page).

That's it.

> 
> Benson came closest quite some mails ago when he highlighted that the
> proposal means we need to vet mentors more, but I see nothing in the
> proposal that covers this.

Well why don't you add it yourself to it? That's why I put it on the wiki.

BTW, I +1'ed Benson's email where we he said. And I agree. We do
need to vet mentors more.

And now, giving you some advice: go to bed :) It's only 7:38pm PDT 
where I am in Southern California, so it's not late for me.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


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


Mime
View raw message