incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:48:07 GMT
I don't suppose that I could convince folks to start a new thread for the
topic, 'The Incubator is a FAIL', and leave this one to the patch for the
decision process?


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:

> We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to
> IPMC. The amount of work the board does on x podlings weach month is less
> than the work they do on x TLPs. That is without the IPMC addressing issues
> that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes
> necessary.
>
> There are problems of efficiency, that is what I believe is the problem.
> But as I said we need to agree to differ at this time.
>
> Where I differ from you is that not when  each podling had 3 active and
> engaged mentors, all would be good in those cases. That is rarely the case
> though. Therefore your proposal means either a reduction in the number of
> accepted projects (problem: how do we know which to accept), a reduction in
> the quality of TLPs (problem: reduction in perceived quality of all ASF
> brands), or a bigger oversight role for the board (problem: will the board
> accept this?)
>
> For me the first option is the only outcome that can be considered. If that
> is a desired change (it is not for me) then your proposal is great. For now
> though the change I want is a more efficient IPMC and this is why we need
> to agree to differ at least until more of the IPMC have a stomach for
> radical change.
>
> Ross
>
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 29 Mar 2013 01:49, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hey Ross,
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> > Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
> > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
> >
> > >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many
> actions
> > >each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded.
> That
> > >is why the IPMC submits a board report.
> >
> > What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1] outside
> of
> > what the board already does for PMCs? I count a total of 0 in the right
> > hand
> > column of my table.
> >
> > Being specific myself:
> >
> > 1. Directors review the IPMC report, and are charged (at least the
> Director
> > shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with
> > reviewing
> > the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion before
> > about
> > removing specific podling reports, and only leaving the summary -- this
> > was nixed.
> > Directors are still charged with reviewing podling individual reports,
> > same as
> > they are with actual project reports. Thus, if you say there are no more
> > podlings,
> > as I do in my proposal, please define, specifically, where the extra work
> > is?
> >
> > 2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little
> centralized
> > authority.
> > Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka! Fix it
> > yourself,
> > PMC! OK, so with that said, what's the problem then by saying, no more
> > podlings,
> > there are simply PMCs? New projects come in to the ASF via steps 3-5 in
> my
> > proposal --
> > through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of
> > merit, community, etc,
> > guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready, the
> > board VOTEs
> > on the incoming project(s). This is true today. Incubator "podlings" are
> > *not officially
> > endorsed projects of the ASF* until they are turned into TLPs by board
> > resolution.
> > Again, so what's changed?
> >
> > What's even more hilarious and illustrative of the guise towards
> > decentralization
> > is that there have been discussions within this very same thread that
> > instead of
> > telling the board there are problems with the Incubator, that we should
> > "fix them ourselves"
> > here. Hehe. Kind of a reflexive but powerful look in the mirror about the
> > desire
> > to move *away* from centralization.
> >
> > Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the goal
> > of the ASF
> > is for the PMCs to be self governing? The "Apache way" is intimated
> > through tribal
> > knowledge of its members. Activeness of a member (and 3 of them on a PMC)
> > is something
> > that the board is aware of, so these things will get caught at project
> > creation, and/or
> > through personnel additions incrementally.
> >
> > >
> > >That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
> > >stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all this up
> > >again. For now lets agree to differ.
> >
> > No problem -- I think we're closer than it seems, but yes, I'm fine with
> > dropping it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
> >
> > >
> > >Ross
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 28 March 2013 16:19, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> > >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> 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.
> > >>
> > >> 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 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: 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> > >Programme Leader (Open Development)
> > >OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message