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: Incubator, or "Incubation"?
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:11:58 GMT
Hi Bill,

On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> [...snip large thought...please check archives here to see it:

http://s.apache.org/S0i
....]
>> 
>> Anyways I could type more but I think I've beat this horse to death. I appeal
>> to you and to the rest of the board members reading this thread will consider
>> my proposal. Thanks for reading.
>> 
>> --Chris, who I'll note *does* care about the IPMC and *does* care a ton about Apache
>> and the folks here and our hallowed status as an awesome open source organization.
> 
> Giving this thread all due consideration, with its own subject;

Thanks Bill.

> 
> I'd modify your proposal just a smidge.  Keep an Incubator VP with a very small
> operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process
> of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions.  Some amount
> of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee.

I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev
can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is.

> 
> Take "VP, Project Incubation" out of the role of judging incoming or graduating
> projects.  Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in
> as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard
> (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience).
> 
> Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors.  Make a choice between
> including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote
> the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and
> somewhat predictable flowchart.
> 
> Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new
> mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost
> their mentors.  This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset
> on established projects.
> 
> Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend
> to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP.

If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP
Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements
above and think they jive with my proposal. 


>  Why?  Given
> the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented
> by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held,
> and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have
> done internal harm.  Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals
> and cast such votes.  That's OK, they are still representative of the membership.
> If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but
> emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the
> proposed project.

Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal 
and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would
mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP 
Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than
served their purpose. 

> 
> In short, all incoming projects continue into an "Incubation" phase as we all
> understand it, subject to additional scrutiny and oversight by a collection
> of mentors and additional scrutiny by the board, reflected in their monthly
> and then quarterly report.  A scorecard continues for the incubating projects
> of the milestones they must reach to graduate into a full fledged project.

+1.

> And we can even continue to restrict them to an incubation.apache.org domain
> until they reach that milestone.

Meh, I don't think that matters, honestly. If they want to be newfoo.apache.org, who
cares, so long as they are following the website and trademarks guidelines for 
what the website should say aka *large bold words* saying Incubation :)

> 
> But they are plugged in from day one into the same array of services offered
> by Board/Legal/Infrastructure/Press/Trademarks/ComDev/ConCom with mentors to
> help them navigate.  Beyond VP, Project Incubation, we will probably uncover
> other obvious services that the ASF should provide as a VP or committee of
> peers to nurture incoming podlings into successful, healthy projects.

Yep, agreed with the above, minus the VP Incubation (or Incubator VP role), 
and associated committee. There's no need for it.

> 
> Every previous restriction on incubating podlings has been eliminated over
> the past 8 years.  There is no reason to continue the incubator committee
> as an ombudsman, when every issue that applies to each incubating podling
> simultaneously applies to each established project.

Yep, and there's no reason to continue the Incubator committee, period.

Thanks for the comments BIll. 

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