incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
Date Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:26:55 GMT
On 14 June 2013 18:16, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <>
>> * pTLP are nothing different than what existed before there was an
>> Incubator. Yes we have more projects now. So what. We'll continue
>> to have more projects and those will eventually graduate to TLP,
>> so we'll be in the same place.
> That kind of ignores the reason why we created the Incubator in
> the 1st place. If what existed before worked, then we wouldn't be
> discussing an Incubator now :)
> For me, the main 2 goals of the Incubator are "legal clearance"
> and "oversight". I doubt the board will be happy with having
> additional oversight duties related to a pTLP. It's not what
> the board is for, or why it exists.

Jim, I want to reassure you that I, and others, have expressed this
precise concern before, many times. The proposal as it stands in the
wiki does not address this issue, neither has it been addressed to my
satisfaction in discussion on this list.

For me one of the largest problems faced in the IPMC is ISSUE 03 in
the wiki, expressed as "The IPMC is a large and noisy place where
success are not celebrated and problems are quickly amplified due to
size and varied approaches of IPMC membership." If podlings never
needed to turn to the IPMC for assistance this problem would not
exist. However, ISSUE 01 ("Some podlings have mostly inactive mentors,
and/or a stale list of mentors that doesn't reflect reality") means
that some projects need the support of the IPMC.

The advantage, that I see, of a pTLP concept is that all incubating
projects *must* have three active PMC members - starting with mentors
only but moving quickly to include active members of the initial
commit list (note this is a subtle difference from Chris' proposal).
Doing this bypasses ISSUE 01, at least to some extent, as the pool of
individuals able to do do "legal clearance" and "oversight" is grown
quickly and thus the need to come to the IPMC is quickly reduced.

Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea.
I have objected vocally to this on the grounds you provide above.
However, I do think that bringing the right committers on podlings
into the IPMC so that they have a binding vote is a good idea. I've
put this forwards as a proposal but was shouted down by those who
perceived this as adding a new layer to the model (since it requires a
some kind of subset of the IPMC to actually run affairs).

My intention with this experiment is to provide an environment in
which we can draw out the benefits hidden in the pTLP idea whilst
addressing the concerns that it avoids the "oversight" and "legal

To be honest, I think we already achieved a fair bit in the last
couple of days. I feel I have a good understanding of what the
proposal needs to look like. However, I promised Ant that I'd get out
of his way once the vote was completed so that he can inject his own
ideas. I know Chris will also be present.

The good news is that I'm in the process of packing my house into a
shipping container and my family into a plane ready for an
international relocation in a couple of weeks. there will be plenty of
space left for these people to think.


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

View raw message