Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <FA2D97DFC830824E9040174E7F8974492512F9D9@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>
References: 
 <CALhtWkfqoqmVUNUwvE0mjzXqv2RGWV2TODEgjrn14YbsWeZ-Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FA2D97DFC830824E9040174E7F8974492512F9D9@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:29:05 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CALhtWkcy7xrN6_Wu8aX232P67WqR80fA4dJwzHccib9FxUdEaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] HCatalog to Graduate and become part of Apache
 Hive
From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I'm not so much opinionated as confused here, perhaps because I have a
very linear view of governance.

I like to know how a vote fits into a governance structure or process,
and I've felt for some time that this case (podling goes to existing
TLP) is not well-explained by our structure.

Back in the days when subprojects were normal and valid, the incubator
had a role on behalf of' an existing TLP in supervising IP and
community behavior. Graduation meant: "OK, umbrella, we certify that
these people can behave like a project and have clean IP." And,
perhaps, the board actually established subprojects? It's all before
my time.

Now that subprojects are no longer in the picture, I don't even know
why the IPMC should ever incubate a podling *if the plan, from the
start, is to be part of some existing TLP.* So I have assumed that
HCatalog started out with the intention to grow into an entire TLP,
and came up with the Hive plan as a fallback.

To try to make this long story shorter, I think that we should make a
proposal to the board with a schema for handling this case that makes
sense in current conditions. I'm happy for it to be your schema, which
amounts, as I see it, to the board having a supervisory moment when
this happens, with an IPMC vote providing the same sort of strong
recommendation one way or the other that it does for establishing a
TLP.


On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Benson,
>
> I saw your later email(s) and Incubator board report. It's fine and I
> think the message of my objection comes across.
> So thanks for that.
>
> One thing I wanted to comment on:
>
> On 2/13/13 4:10 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Chris,
>>
>>The obvious compromise is to ask them to report the vote result as it
>>happened, it seems to me, -1's and all. But where do you think that
>>they are reporting anything? There's nothing happening here at the
>>board level. There's no board resolution needed for a Hive committer
>>to type 'svn cp' on the hcatalog tree,
>
> Not by my counts. There's a *community* resolution and a recommendation to
> be made by the IPMC, nonetheless.
> Otherwise, the IPMC is pretty useless IMO, and more importantly, so is the
> Incubator.
>
> Why bother even incubating HCatalog? Hive could have simply svn cp'ed
> whatever code came in, or whatever code the podling arrived at, and
> Incubation would have stopped then. But we both know that's not the way it
> works. Even if a podling graduates to an existing TLP, go check out the
> past resolutions. You'll note there's a section in there that discharges
> the responsibility of the IPMC for the podling. So, yes, the IPMC *is*
> involved. And yes, the IPMC vote matters.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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