incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:38:54 GMT

On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> Hey Ross,
>>>> I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
>> legally
>>>> responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
>>> it
>>>> with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
>>> Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
>>> Incubator
>>> deconstruction proposal [1]. In fact, it does not make the board legally
>>> responsible
>>> in any different way than the board is currently responsible for its
>>> plethora of
>>> TLPs -- IOW, it doesn't change a thing. It basically suggests that
>>> incoming projects
>>> can simply fast track to (t)LPs from the get go, so long as they have
>>>> = 3
>>> ASF members
>>> present to help execute and manage the Incubator "process" which still
>>> exists in
>>> my proposed deconstruction.
>> My point is that all the oversight currently provided by the IPMC would
>> have to be provided by the board. We already know that having three
>> mentors
>> does not guarantee adequate support for podlings.
> I guess I would ask "what oversight"? There is no global IPMC oversight.
> Ever since Joe's experiment, and even before, the podlings that get through
> the Incubator (and I've taken quite a few now, and recently, so I think I
> can speak from a position of experience here within the last few years),
> are the ones that have active mentors and *distributed*, not *centralized*
> oversight.
> IOW, I'm not seeing any IPMC oversight at the moment. I'm seeing good
> mentors,
> located in each podling, distributed, that get podlings through. Those that
> stall well they need help. Usually the help is debated endlessly, and not
> solved,
> or simply solved with more active/better mentors.

My experience as a shepherd shows that you can in fact recognize podling issues and eventually
get them to the point where graduation of one kind or another happens. Two examples:

EasyAnt graduating to Apache Ant.

Etch finally graduated with a small, but sufficient PMC.

> So, that's my whole point. You either agree with me that there is no IPMC
> oversight at the moment (for years now), and that really podlings are TLPs
> (well the ones that graduate within a fixed set of time as Sam was trying
> to measure
> before, or simply point out that is) or you still believe that there is
> oversight
> within the IPMC.

I don't think it is an either / or. The current amount of oversight for any podling is a function
of mentors, current IPMC dynamics, and real life influences.

The shepherds serve a purpose as more of a divining rod into that dynamic, many solutions
are possible, and the podling needs to be pushed into making choices.


> I personally don't. That's why I wrote the proposal. And
> I think
> that's at least evident to me and more than a few others that that's the
> problem here 
> and that's why I don't think the Incubator should exist anymore in its
> current form
> and should be deconstructed :)
> Thanks for your comments and conversation and for listening.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email:
> WWW:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message