incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:08:21 GMT
Hi Benson,

-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:02 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)

>Chris M observes, if I may parody, that it's 'just like' the
>discredited umbrella projects, and proposes to fix this by making
>podlings even more like the standard model -- each one a TLP
>supervised by The Board.

That's one part of it.

>I think that any alternative has to specifically address the alternate
>legal structure. Who votes on releases? Who votes on karma? I
>personally don't have a problem with a plan in which the incubator
>isn't really a PMC at the end of the day. One way to combine Ross and
>Chris is to say, 'well, the Board could decide that it can't watch 22
>nascent projects, so it's delegated that to a committee.

Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs? And if they
are not then I call b. to the s. -- we ask the podlings to start operating
like TLPs on day 1 -- we ask the mentors to do the same -- and to teach
the PPMC that. Yet, the board isn't watching them in the same way?

Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
at the top of the Incubator report). That's at least one other Director
(there were probably more since there was consensus on the podling
specific reports not going away when it was discussed) that IMHO watches
the podlings the same way as the TLPs are watched.

And, why is it so hard to see that the "Board" may watch, but in the
end, it's on the specific committees ('podling' as we currently call
them or 'PPMC' or otherwise [TLP]) to manage their stuff? The Board
is the "bazooka", the "elephant gun", remember? That's why we're still
here discussing ad nauseum this topic a year later -- because to bazooka
the Incubator would be some monuments event, similar to the bazooka, of
PRC, etc. -- something that's discussed at ApacheCon over beer about the
'old ways' and 'can you believe when that happened, wow??!'. In the end,
it's not a monuments event. As Upayavira said, life went on in PRC, in
the sub committees; Apache went on.

What I've done is suggest [in the Apache vein], what is IMO, a logical,
incremental (and even potentially reversible) "next step". Upayavira's
latest email on this was right -- he sees that the Incubator is broken,
and perhaps it needs to be split into smaller, separate committees. Ross
is right too -- maybe something else needs to be elected in the form of a
committee (his shepherds) to watch the incoming projects. My point is
-- great -- I can't see the forrest through the trees on the answer to
question yet. What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross
with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and it
needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that.

I've suggested a logical next step to fixing it -- don't let the wacko
committee try and "fix itself". That's like asking an insane asylum to
form a committee for how it will itself. Besides the insanity, they are
naturally in a conflict of interest state. Instead, I'm proposing, rubble
the asylum, transition delegation and authority if only temporarily until
some next step proposal can be agreed upon and discussed without the



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

View raw message