Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com
 designates 209.85.220.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B2359F91-2F3E-4AF9-8D37-B3763334FDA7@toolazydogs.com>
References: 
 <CAKQbXgDOT+v72AGO57KqakkGQS2YYzv=Hk_NXii4Jj_xEYc15w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgCJ6zT5970sseHPtr3_bjFocKiD1PWfK0FupmHkjYV-UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <55B901A1-853A-400B-8596-7EBED64A8BC0@toolazydogs.com>
 <CAKQbXgAPNoqbeYnEaKgtvRsaMq7FQBq_Ga4AC_s4UM7+enozHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B2359F91-2F3E-4AF9-8D37-B3763334FDA7@toolazydogs.com>
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:48:27 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKQbXgDqWFLNZTRwSakPy91e2WMVFtJtRp8F=Yw8P2Dia+=vyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 13 June 2013 14:12, Alan Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 June 2013 04:56, Alan Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> 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.
>
> I guess the details of how this governance will work, what are the roles, and who will fill them, will need to be ironed out.

Yes. Of course in this case I'm proposing a period as a podling to
give us time to iron those details out. However, here's my starting
suggestion:

This is just a TLP so we need to identify is committers, PMC, PMC
chair. My starting suggestion is:

- commiters (see proposal)
- PMC members (I suggest initial membership is the mentors, the
mentors seek to vote initial committers into the PMC as quickly as
possible)
- PMC chair (I would suggest the chair is the Champion until the PMC
is confident enough to elect one from their own ranks - should be done
ASAP, but certainly before graduation)

>>> 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.
>
> It would probably be good to be clear on what are the exact characteristics that make this podling pTLP worthy for the future.  For example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks.

The board expects a TLP to be able to make releases. That requires 3
+1 votes. That implies 3 initial PMC members. According to my starting
proposal above this means 3 mentors minimum. This in turn matches what
has come to be common practice in the IPMC.

>> 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)
>
> +1
>
> Though I wouldn't put a date on TLP; keep things simple.  We don't for podlings and since the pTLP will be filled with trustworthy ASF members we can trust they will do the right thing.

Yes, I did wonder about that when I was writing this. I kept adding
and removing it. I would like a date in there as targets are always
something to aim for. The fact we don't have such a target for
podlings is one of the items that some people suggest needs fixing.
That said, the board is sensible enough to give a pTLP longer than the
target if it is clear things are moving in the right direction. I
would suggest we keep the date but make sure it is only a guideline.


Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org