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 Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:10:55 GMT
On 13 June 2013 04:56, Alan Cabrera <> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>> So here's a thought...


>> I would therefore like to propose that we use Apache Stratos as a test
>> case for the "probationary TLP" idea. I've already talked to Chris
>> (who is driving the deconstruct the IPMC case) and Ant (who is less
>> keen on dismantling the IPMC but wants to see how a probationary TLP
>> model will play out). Both have agreed to help with this experiment if
>> the IPMC and the Board wish it to proceed. I have not, however,
>> discussed it with all the initial comitters or even mentors - I'm
>> expecting them to speak up now.


>> So, what do you think?
> I don't see the need to force Stratos through the Incubator given the current proposed
membership.  Some points:
> Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the board?  I think it should
be the IPMC.

I think we should come up with a concrete plan then go to the board.
If the board is OK with taking it on then it should be board as this
will be closer to Chris' defined end goal.

In either case I undertake, as I noted in my original mail, to be the
one that steps up to fix things if it all goes wrong. That's true
whether it is IPMC or Board.

> What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins?

That needs to be defined. Given the fact the next board meeting is
only a week away I suggest we first make this a podling to allow us to
start the project here at the ASF. We can then work with the various
committees to work out what the right set-up process is (i.e. don't
set up as a podling, set up as a pTLP). We can then shoot for
submitting a board resolution next month.

I have already made it clear to the proposers of the project that
taking this route will result in a slightly longer set-up period
(because of the need to define new policies along the way). They are
comfortable trading slower set-up for potentially faster graduation.

> What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in good graces?

Exactly the same as any other TLP.

> What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces?

Exactly the same as any other TLP. The board says "fix it". If it
isn't fixed the board kicks out the problem element(s) and invites
remaining PMC to "fix it". If that failes the pTLP is sent packing.

> What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes?

Same as graduation from the Incubator (a release, demonstration of a
healthy community, approval of the board)

> Fleshing out these and, I'm sure, others' concerns on a wiki, as Joe pointed out, would
be a great idea.

Yes, but please note my proposal to do this as a standard podling
rather than in this discussion phase. I don't think we need everything
in a row before the team can get to work.

If it should prove impossible to find a sensible process then we can
simply leave the project as a standard podling.

So to recap the proposed timeline:

- IPMC votes on accepting the podling with the intention of moving it to a pTLP
- mentors (with Chris' assistance) guide project committers in working
with the various committees to define incubation/probation process
- submit a board resolution in July to create the pTLP
  - if project is not ready to do so this can be delayed until August
- If the board are unhappy with the project then I am called in to
clear up the mess I made
- If the board are happy with progress submit a resolution to become a
TLP in <12 months (target 6 months)


> Regards,
> Alan

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

View raw message