incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Date Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:12:15 GMT
I would like to pick this thread up again...

IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various
views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members;

Greg, Chris --> Would like to have "Provisional" badge, which entails
disclaimers to alert users.

Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with
incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator.

Bertrand  --> Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with.
Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision.

Doug --> Don't want to see more "vectors" for Board, as any future change
to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status
from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at
the TLP itself.

Jim --> Was worried about the wording ("run") that implied more work for
Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is "mulling over"
the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about "just do it,
document later" approach.

Ross --> Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn
possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to
experiments to gather data.

At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board
level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus
in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped.

Opinions?

Niclas

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way
> to
> > > become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
> > > discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who
> votes
> > > on a pTLP resolution.
> >
> > Resolution R2, paragraph 3:
> >
> >
> >
> http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt
>
>
> Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign
> *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for
> such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept
> a contravening resolution the next.
>
> *shrug*
>
> ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing
> against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is
> left to the Board.
>
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

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