incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:14:13 GMT
Hahah, we all need sleep?

What?!! :)

Take care duder, we'll spent some cycles doing other emails while
we let this sit.

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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:11 AM
To: general <general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)

>Chris,
>
>The fundamental issue is that I don't agree the IPMC needs deconstructing.
>I believe it finds it difficult to come to a decision when unusual
>circumstance arises, but most of the time it does fine.
>
>I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find
>sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will
>scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a
>typical
>mentor, most of us need sleep.
>
>I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the
>incubation
>process is broken.  Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems
>of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or
>that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in.
>Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus
>to
>the board. Moving problems does not solve them.
>
>Ross
>
>Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
>On 29 Mar 2013 16:51, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> [Note subject line change for Benson]
>>
>>
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
>> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
>> To: general <general@incubator.apache.org>
>> 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
>> >necessary.
>>
>> 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
>> >though.
>>
>> 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
>> me
>> asking me directly to help mentor). I'm talking about 14 podlings over
>> the last few years. Here you go I'll enumerate:
>>
>> ---graduated
>> OODT
>> Airavata
>> SIS
>> Gora
>> Lucy
>> Giraph
>>
>> cTAKES
>> Any23
>>
>> ---current
>> HDT
>> Mesos
>> Tez
>> Knox
>> Climate
>> Tajo
>>
>>
>> >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
>> above
>> suggestions will happen.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> >
>> >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
>> >>
>> >>[..snip..]
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 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
>>
>>


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


Mime
View raw message