incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Earned autonomy
Date Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:00:01 GMT
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 01:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
>>> 2 on the next, 1 on the following and then trust the committee to follow
>>> the established precedent.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Instead of automatically decreasing the count, the device I'd suggest is
>> for
>> the ASF Members on the committee to vote to grant binding votes to
>> individual
>> contributors who they believe have demonstrated a thorough understanding
>> of
>> the Apache Way.
>>
>> Release Managers would be prime candidates; given the challenge of getting
>> an
>> incubating release out the door, an RM will likely have acquired greater
>> expertise than many ASF PMC members who have been voted directly into TLP
>> PMCs.  Just being an RM might not be enough, but it would be left to the
>> judgment of the ASF Members / Mentors to vet and vote on candidates.
>>
>> The canonical path towards project autonomy would thus be to make three
>> incubating releases with three different contributors serving as RM.
>
>

Agreed that we need to have supervision on the initial phase, and that
some type of gradual phasing is required before they can handle the
releases by themselves.

> What worries me a lot about the recent proposals, not only the text above,
> is that project autonomy seems to be measured foremost by just doing proper
> releases.
>
> To me, Apache == Community over code.
>
> Code is important, it is what we are all here for (too), but the 'Apache
> Way' and especially community development and a healthy diversity IMO are
> even more critical. And especially for reaching project autonomy: *that* IMO
> is what the Incubator is (or should be) about.
>

Code and Releases are things that the Foundation might have legal
liability, that's why I have some concerns about leaving it without
any supervision.

I also agreed with your point about community, and I think this is the
place where ComDev would get pluged in.

> Learning the 'tricks' and reasons of doing proper releases isn't easy, and
> for sure required. But a 'perfect' RM doesn't automatically make a 'perfect'
> Apache TLP PMC member in my book. Which has been discussed quite a lot as
> well last week.
>
> The thing I'm worried about with the 'radical/revolutionary proposals of
> creating Incubator projects as TLPs from the start, is that they they also
> start 'on their own', even with 3 Mentors on board.
> Meaning: there is no 'glue' or common community between individual
> 'incubator' TLPs anymore which can help them, with the help of (many more)
> experienced IPMC members, as well as fellow Incubator PPMC members, to learn
> the ropes.
> Beyond merely doing proper releases.
>
> I fully agree the current Incubator has its issues, but radically killing it
> off IMO will also kill off more than just those issues: it will also kill
> the Incubator community itself. Maybe ComDev can or actually then will have
> to take over, but we should be really careful before breaking something down
> without having a replacement 'safety net' in place.
>
> Ate
>
>

Yes, moving from one "Incubator" to "ComDev" will not really fix all
the issues... but it seems that consensus is being built on this
direction.

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

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


Mime
View raw message