incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <>
Subject Re: my pTLP view
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:15:10 GMT
+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:

View raw message