incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
Date Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:34:22 GMT
The Board is always the responsible party, but in the sense that you mean
"responsibility in finding a fix", then I fully agree.

IMO, if a pTLP gets into the weeds, then the Board will just say "fix
yourself within six months, or we dismantle you".

Cheers,
-g
On Jun 15, 2013 2:58 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:

> That first sentence still doesn't parse, sorry ...
>
> I should have said I don't like the idea of the board taking
> responsibility. I have no problem with it receiving reports directly.
>
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 15 Jun 2013 07:55, "Ross Gardler" <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
> > I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports
> > for podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting
> > that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of
> cases.
> > I'll expand on that in Chris' thread.
> >
> > I'll note that in this thread I answered the question of who Stratos
> > should report to with the board, but I'll also note I don't expect the
> > board to provide mentoring. That is a key difference between what I am
> > proposing for pTLP and the original deconstruction proposal.
> >
> > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> > On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler
> >> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> >> >...
> >> > Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea.
> >>
> >> I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting.
> >>
> >> Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here...
> >>
> >> The Incubator gathers reports from all of its podlings. It reviews
> >> them, discusses some aspects with those podlings, and then it files a
> >> report with the ASF Board. Three paragraphs stating, "Hey. No issues.
> >> Everything is going great. Community is good. Legal is good. kthxbai."
> >>
> >> Would that fly with the ASF Board?
> >>
> >> Not a chance. The simple fact is that the Board *does* want to see
> >> reports from podlings. Those podlings will (hopefully) become part of
> >> the Foundation one day. The Board is *keenly* interested in what is
> >> going on, and how those podlings are doing.
> >>
> >> If you suggest a model of a total black box. Where *no* podling
> >> information escapes from the Incubator to the Board. And then one
> >> day... *poof!!* ... a graduation resolution appears before the Board.
> >> Do you honestly think the Board would just sign off on that? Again:
> >> not a chance.
> >>
> >> What this really means is: the Board wants to review podlings'
> >> progress and operations. I don't see how it can be argued any other
> >> way. So if that is true, then why does the IPMC need to be a middle
> >> man? Why not provide those reports from the podling directly to the
> >> Board? And why not get the podling directly engaged with the actual
> >> operation of the Foundation? About how to report to the Board? About
> >> shepherds, watching for commentary in the agenda, about committing to
> >> that agenda!, and about paying attention to board@ and its operations.
> >> If we want to teach new communities about how the ASF works, then why
> >> the artificial operation of the Incubator? Why not place them directly
> >> in contact with the *real* ASF?
> >>
> >> By all measures, Apache Subversion would have been a pTLP when it
> >> arrived at the Incubator. But we integrated very well into the ASF
> >> because there were Members, Directors, and other long-term Apache
> >> people who could answer "huh? what is a PMC Member? how does that map
> >> to our 'full committer' status? what are these reports?" ... and more.
> >> The close attention, and the direct integration with the Foundation,
> >> worked as well as you could expect. The Incubator did not provide much
> >> value, beyond what the extent Members were already providing (recall
> >> that we easily had a half-dozen at the time; I don't know the count
> >> offhand, but it was well past any normal podling).
> >>
> >> The Incubator may not provide value to certain projects that reach the
> >> pTLP bar (again: some thumbs-up definition of that is needed!), but it
> >> is *very* much required for projects/communities that are not as
> >> familiar with how we like to do things here.
> >>
> >> In this concrete case of Stratos, I personally (and as a voting
> >> Director) have every confidence in trying the pTLP approach. I
> >> outlined some areas that I believe the Board needs before accepting a
> >> pTLP, and so I'm looking forward to this experiment. I think it will
> >> turn out well. I do think we may be setting up some communities for
> >> anger, when the Board chooses to *not* grant pTLP status and refers
> >> the community to the Incubator. I really don't have a good answer
> >> there, especially around the future/obvious direction of "pTLP is only
> >> for the Old Boys Club and other insiders". Sigh. Can't be helped, I
> >> think.
> >>
> >> Anyhow. To the original point: pTLP reporting to the Board is
> >> practically speaking a no-brainer. Podlings generally report direct to
> >> the Board today, minus some intermediary stuff.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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