Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=M5PF0/MiKceJNenteocM5wQ5n1GC6HdADZ1pi1WksaYhUPxRPT9lX1VjvGLFERLsR4GOj0Bp5IeRVtz36+ViCcZEfuTgn9wdcDy+it1em8BUB9V+0z1J4MJgH2xvSMcFF0yusv4aTXUEEcICGH5e/Pv11qvfS38JFHewpeZh/jw=;
References: 
 <CAOFYJNYO_H_-wD_Lm8xsxjiV9j2u_H2dL+MbQfTySLBsFgkNWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFG6u8GzJaP9A-Bkq=S_O7qZwerMdK=ywuMogUCFfum7suHF7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1328727143.42223.YahooMailNeo@web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:52:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: February report review
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFG6u8GzJaP9A-Bkq=S_O7qZwerMdK=ywuMogUCFfum7suHF7g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A>________________________________=0A> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly=
.net>=0A>To: general@incubator.apache.org =0A>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, =
2012 1:37 PM=0A>Subject: Re: February report review=0A> =0A>On Wed, Feb 8, =
2012 at 12:37 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:=0A>> Hi,=
=0A>>=0A>> The podling reports this month [1] seem pretty good in general.=
=0A>>=0A>> I spent some time unifying report formatting and fixing some min=
or=0A>> issues (like Stanbol needing an intro paragraph). I also pinged=0A>=
> NPanday and Zeta Components that have still not reported (both also=0A>> =
missed their previous report), asking them to report again next month=0A>> =
unless they already have something ready. HISE didn't report as the=0A>> pr=
oject is just about to retire.=0A>>=0A>> Based on the submitted reports I'd=
 divide the projects into the=0A>> following three rough categories:=0A>>=
=0A>> 1) Still getting started at the Incubator (7 podlings)=0A>> =A0 - Any=
23=0A>> =A0 - Bloodhound=0A>> =A0 - Cordova=0A>> =A0 - DeltaSpike=0A>> =A0 =
- DeviceMap=0A>> =A0 - Flex=0A>> =A0 - Openmeetings=0A>>=0A>> 2) Not yet re=
ady to graduate, categorized by most pressing issue (12 podlings)=0A>> =A0 =
2a) IP clearance: Amber=0A>> =A0 2b) Release trouble: Clerezza, Stanbol=0A>=
> =A0 2c) Low activity: Ambari, Nuvem, PhotArk, SIS, Wink=0A>> =A0 2d) Low =
diversity: Airavata, Droids, VCL, Wookie=0A>>=0A>> 3) Ready to graduate (3 =
podlings)=0A>> =A0 - Jena=0A>> =A0 - Lucene.NET=0A>> =A0 - OpenNLP=0A>>=0A>=
> Also, I looked at the number of mentors signing off a report. Most had=0A=
>> at least two explicit sign-offs, which is pretty good. Here's the list=
=0A>> of projects with less than that:=0A>>=0A>> - no signoffs: Amber, Open=
NLP=0A>> - one signoff: Any23, Ambari, Jena, Lucene.NET, Nuvem, Openmeeting=
s,=0A>> PhotArk, Wink=0A>>=0A>> I'm not yet sure how useful (or even meanin=
gful) summaries like this=0A>> are. If people find this summary useful or m=
ore importantly something=0A>> we can act on, then we could try doing it ag=
ain for future reports.=0A>=0A>This demonstrates active oversight.=A0 I par=
ticularly like the asking of=0A>those projects that didn't report to do so =
next month.=0A>=0A>In fact, I would go further.=A0 Freeze the wiki page, ad=
d a link, and=0A>submit this as the Incubator report for this month to the =
board.=0A=0A=0A+1. This is a much saner summary of the IPMC's activities to=
 report=0Ato the board than simply passing on the podling reports unprocess=
ed.=0A=0A=0A>=0A>I don't mean this to sound like a "yes, but", but you have=
 identified=0A>12 podlings that aren't new and aren't ready to graduate.=A0=
 Are there=0A>active plans to address the top issue identified?=A0 =A0 If t=
here are=0A>plans, and there is evidence of recent progress towards resolvi=
ng the=0A>issue, fine.=A0 Otherwise, please identify what actions the Incub=
ator=0A>PMC should be taking.=A0 That action could be as simple as asking t=
he=0A>podling to report again next month.=0A=0A=0AWell that would require m=
ore careful scrutiny of the individual reports.=0ASIS, one of the wayward p=
odlings I am mentoring, is trying to kick things=0Ainto gear again, but mig=
ht be worthwhile subjecting to another report next=0Amonth.=0A=0A=0A>=0A>> =
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012=0A>>=0A>> BR,=0A>>=0A>> J=
ukka Zitting=0A>=0A>P.S.=A0 This may very well piss off four people, but ha=
ve you thought=0A>about being Chair for the Incubator PMC?=0A=0A=0ALOL.=A0 =
If Jukka is going to perform on this level consistently, I'd certainly=0Asu=
pport this.=A0 As I have said before I don't believe the *right* solution=
=0Ais to dismantle the IPMC, at least not when the number one problem remai=
ns=0Aactive mentor participation.=A0 I think Jukka's leadership here in the=
 actual=0Aoversight work we need to be doing monthly is the best representa=
tion of=0Awhat I'd like to see from the IPMC Chair going forward.

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