incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
Date Sat, 15 Jun 2013 06:55:02 GMT
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