Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 list@toolazydogs.com does not designate 209.85.220.54 as permitted sender)
From: Alan Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_FA16D33D-CDAE-4749-9F36-9C6A9950B156"
Message-Id: <55B901A1-853A-400B-8596-7EBED64A8BC0@toolazydogs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:56:24 -0700
References: 
 <CAKQbXgDOT+v72AGO57KqakkGQS2YYzv=Hk_NXii4Jj_xEYc15w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgCJ6zT5970sseHPtr3_bjFocKiD1PWfK0FupmHkjYV-UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgCJ6zT5970sseHPtr3_bjFocKiD1PWfK0FupmHkjYV-UQ@mail.gmail.com>

--Apple-Mail=_FA16D33D-CDAE-4749-9F36-9C6A9950B156
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252


On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> =
wrote:

> So here's a thought...
>=20
> There have been many discussions about different ways to incubate
> projects. One of the most radical ideas is to dismantle the incubator
> and replace the podling concept with "probationary TLPs" reporting to
> the board. As readers of this list will know I do not support the idea
> of dismantling the IPMC. I believe it does a great job that is not
> easily replaced by a board of nine directors. However, I have always
> acknowledged that the idea has merit under a certain set of
> circumstances.
>=20
> For me those circumstances are present in the Apache Stratos proposal.
> That is there are sufficient mentors and initial committers who are
> ASF Members that we can be reasonably certain that this project will
> succeed here at the ASF.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> For my part my intention is to get the project set-up and then
> dissolve into the background. I do not intend to monitor the project
> on a day-to-day basis. However, I do promise to help pick up the
> pieces if the experiment should go horribly wrong.
>=20
> Of course running a single experiment will only allow us to define the
> incubation process for probationary TLPs, It is not going to solve all
> the problems Chris sees in the IPMC. However it will give us an
> opportunity to define the process, ask the board to approve this
> process and thus lay the foundations for other projects wishing to
> follow this path.
>=20
> 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.
What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins?
What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in =
good graces?
What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces?
What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes?
Fleshing out these and, I'm sure, others' concerns on a wiki, as Joe =
pointed out, would be a great idea.


Regards,
Alan


--Apple-Mail=_FA16D33D-CDAE-4749-9F36-9C6A9950B156--