incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Douglas <>
Subject Re: IPMC/Incubator/Metors reform: where do we go from here
Date Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:05:57 GMT
+1; this is a pragmatic proposal. -C

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <> wrote:
> Hi!
> I think it would be fair to say that in the
> past month or so we've had a healthy amount
> of discussion around where to go next with
> IPMC/Incubator/Metors reform. A diverse
> set of view points has emerged that helped
> clarify things a great deal (at least for me it did!).
> This is all goodness. What seems to be missing
> at this point, though, is coming up with a set of
> actionable steps and moving forward.
> Here's what I would like to propose: lets decouple
> IPMC/Incubator/Metors reform from a *complimentary*
> plan of pTLPs. It is clear that no drastic change is
> in the cards for Incubator for the next 6 months. Whatever
> we do on that side of things has to be very measured and
> incremental. And regardless of whether IPMC gets reformed
> of stays exactly the same, running a pTLP experiment and
> evaluating that as an eventual alternative to IPMC seems
> pretty non-controversial to me.
> Personally, I'm much more enthusiastic about pTLPs
> becoming THE way of how new projects get added to
> the foundation. This is what I'm going to focus all of
> my personal energy in the coming months, hoping to
> demonstrate pTLP to not only be a viable, but a superior
> alternative to bringing new projects into the foundation.
> Although I can NOT offer my time to champion a more
> incremental approach to evolving the classic Incubator,
> I think it is of paramount importance that somebody
> do it. It would be a great thing if whoever becomes a new
> Chair can get this done. My only observation here is that
> despite our efforts to evolve 3 of the wikified proposals,
> the way they stand right now is not actionable within the
> charter of a careful, incremental approach to improving IPMC.
> Or to put it another way: there are still dealbreakers (btw,
> thanks to those who took time to provide that feedback
> on the wiki!) and hence should any of these proposal
> come to a vote -- I don't think they can reach a consensus
> in their current form.
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message