incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:10:41 GMT
I believe there is a minor typo below:

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>>>> thoughts/positioning below.
>>>
>>> While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
>>> operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing,
>>> and able to execute on such?
>>
>> Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan.
>
> I may be misreading or not following, but I see the original (now
> elided) description as being at least subtly different than what Chris
> is proposing.
>
> What we currently have is a Incubator.  The board sees the list of
> members of that PMC as those who oversee the entire project.  The
> Incubator sees the list of members of itself as mentors to various
> podlings who need not have any additional role.
>
> I saw what Bill described as fixing that by more closely aligning what
> the Incubator sees itself with how the Board sees the incubator.  The
> net effect would be a much smaller list of IPMC members.
>
> I see what Chris described as reducing the IPMC members to zero.
>
> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
> or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
> PPMC to work with this group.

^^ should be IPMC, I believe.

(and FWIW, this is the model that I believe we should move to; in a
couple years, we may find this new-IPMC can be phased out, but I'd
like to see the new model well-tested first)

>
> This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
> continue indefinitely.
>
> This (at least to me) doesn't seem to be something that Chris is signing up for.
>
>> Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of
>> such an effort.
>
> +1
>
>> But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the
>> VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary,
>> particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value?  I can't
>> answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the
>> board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond
>> dissolution of "IPMC", and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue.
>
> "hasn't convinced him of its value" is evidence that what you are
> describing is different than what Chis is proposing.  Hence, my
> question: is there anybody willing to sign up for what you are
> describing?  I ask this is something I would support.
>
>> That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even
>> in the fastest of plans to begin adopting "Foo Project, Incubating" TLPs.
>
> I'm not so sure.  Chris is talking about reducing the Incubator to
> zero in a matter of months.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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