incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: my pTLP view
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:37:32 GMT
I would support it as an experiment.

I will support it because it is one of the few actionable suggestions on the table.

My caution has been expressed elsewhere. So I'll summarize as a reminder:

1) I supported just such an experiment a couple of years ago. It didn't go well (not disastrous,
but not as expected). This is different from the original experiment as it removes the IPMC
completely, but it wasn't the IPMC that was a problem.

2) Changing the oversight body doesn't magically make mentors as attentive as they need to
be. There is *much* more work in fixing the problem than changing the oversight role.

Neither of these items mean pTLP will fail. I am supportive of the proposal as long as there
is sufficient examination of the PMC membership on creation (which I see no reason to doubt).


Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Chris Mattmann<>
Sent: ‎1/‎23/‎2015 7:18 AM
To: Greg Stein<>;<>;
Chris Mattmann<>; Jim Jagielski<>
Subject: Re: my pTLP view

+1000. My view too and with my support too.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein <>
Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:42 AM
To: "" <>, Chris
Mattmann <>, Jim Jagielski <>
Subject: my pTLP view

>Roman kicked off a query about  "next steps", with links to several wiki
>pages on possibilities. The "IncubatorV2" page which describes a
>"probationary TLP" is nothing like I have thought about.
>In my mind, a pTLP looks *exactly* like any other PMC. They report
>directly to the Board, they have infrastructure like any other project
> <>). But they have two significant
>1. probationary text is prominent, much like we require "incubating" to
>be prominent in various locations/messages for podlings
>2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members. committers can be
>chosen however the community decides. but the *project* is reviewed by
>people with (hopefully/theoretically) experience with the Foundation and
>its views on communities
>That's it. By creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then they
>can groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them
>to the PMC. The Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can
>do whatever it wants in that regard.
>The Board might not accept a pTLP resolution because it wants more
>greybeards on there, to help the community. Removing the "probationary"
>label, is up to the pTLP to request, and the Board to approve. It is
>usually pretty obvious when a community has
> reached that point, if you are talking about active ASF/PMC Members. But
>the Board would apply its own level of trust.
>There is a big element here, which didn't exist 12 years ago: the Board's
>ability to review many projects. Before the Incubator, there weren't that
>many projects. The Directors didn't have a lot of experience with a lot
>of breadth. Nowadays, we review
> the work of *dozens* of projects every month. If one is a pTLP instead
>of a regular TLP? Not a big deal. They have some operational
>restrictions, but the report should be showing us a typical Apache
>The other aspect is IP clearance and management, which also didn't exist
>a dozen years ago (and the Incubator was basically started in response to
>some IP problems). We have a much better understanding there. Today, we
>have the Incubator performing that,
> but no reason we can't have pTLPs managing that process. We file "forms"
>about clearance with the Incubator, but really: that should be filed
>$somehow defined by the VP of Legal Affairs (and *that* position/process
>didn't exist until years after the Incubator
> was established).
>TLPs are a recognition of a community. We can create probationary
>communities, supported by ComDev, Legal, other communities, and reviewed
>by the Board.
>Speaking as a Director of the ASF, if a Resolution arrived on the Board's
>Agenda to create such a pTLP, then I would be supportive. The pTLP
>construct is independent of the Apache Incubator. Anybody is free to
>define how they want to approach it, and then
> ask the Board if they are willing to try it.

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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message