incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: my pTLP view
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:19:07 GMT
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
> 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 (eg.
> But they have two significant differences:
> 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

These are indeed the two linchpins for the whole thing.

Now, if pTLPs are successful we *may*, very carefully, decide to relax
#2, but only on the exceptional basis. Much like we allow non ASF
folks to join IPMC.

> The Board might not accept a pTLP resolution because it wants more
> greybeards on there, to help the community.

I, in fact, feel it to be a good thing. I don't think there's nearly enough
focus on vetting the initial list of mentors on some of the Incubator
proposals these days. Raising the bar to be 'the board' makes it
so much more important for podlings to recruit folks who can
actually help them.

> 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 community.


> 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.

The way it is shaping up, I think that'll be part of the two pronged approach
I'd recommend to try for a 6 month:
   1. do a very minimum amount of reform at the IPMC and existing podlings
   2. run an experiment with a few candidates (either existing or new ones)
   around pTLP
If, after 6 months, we feel that #2 is working, we'll start channeling all new
incoming projects into pTLPs and let IPMC evolve into something else
in a very natural way (no revolution required).

I'm really happy to see that the board may be willing to engage in a controlled
experiment like this one. Getting a level of board support was my biggest
concern at this point.


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

View raw message