incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:50:41 GMT
[Note subject line change for Benson]

Hi Ross,

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
To: general <>
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

>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.

Yeah I guess this is the crux.

I respect your opinion, but honestly feel strongly for my own too :)
No worries, such is life.

>That is without the IPMC addressing issues
>that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes

Well yeah that's the point. I've gone into details, ad nauseum. They are
literally extrapolated on my proposal and in numerous email threads too.
I've done the work to document them.

>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.

Without knowing the specifics, saying that we differ I don't think is
Constructive at least on my end. IOW, I don't think it's anything that a
bar camp, with some
good IPA wouldn't solve ^_^

>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

Ross, if it's rarely the case, I wouldn't be here helping 6 podlings at
the moment in the Incubator (and those podlings wouldn't have all come to
asking me directly to help mentor). I'm talking about 14 podlings over
the last few years. Here you go I'll enumerate:




>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?)

The above is anecdotal -- the board has scaled from 90 projects a few
years ago to 
137 currently over that time. Based on that, I don't think any of the 3
suggestions will happen.


>For me the first option is the only outcome that can be considered. If
>is a desired change (it is not for me) then your proposal is great. For
>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.
>Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
>On 29 Mar 2013 01:49, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>> wrote:
>> Hey Ross,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ross Gardler <>
>> Reply-To: "" <>
>> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
>> To: "" <>
>> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>> >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many
>> >each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded.
>> >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
>> shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with
>> reviewing
>> the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion
>> 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
>> is?
>> 2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little
>> authority.
>> Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka! Fix
>> 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
>> proposal --
>> through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of
>> merit, community, etc,
>> guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready,
>> 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
>> desire
>> to move *away* from centralization.
>> Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the
>> 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
>> 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
>> >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]

Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

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

View raw message