incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:00:33 GMT
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.

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


Mime
View raw message