Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABD8fLV7FA1xxarpepzhCiprMEu0L32WFx-_6kQwhfaR8T1FpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADmm+Ke7bNxA4O0eZ7CagVA08sz_+aunQUOmU9j5Kjzifqz1Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+ULb+uJ9Y52i7rjDihvYQLO5u0J=TfVvPZqVkKjQvwPaUkJ5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADmm+KcyNE7rkpw9wLhB5rrNZ+be3_Cef1yX_xP3xb5tkk8PQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK2iWdSa4ifdTpR7wxRN61QdARZr23eHes32XMwo60zhHvp-Xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADmm+Kc3HuwG2itZ=La6AqOUqfdSqy49d2_fmD5QA7DUCCf6QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7iiqGY4Y-fnhc+LY56pCNgzHtbubgfBuyyZ9o=8preEWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABD8fLV7FA1xxarpepzhCiprMEu0L32WFx-_6kQwhfaR8T1FpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:29:42 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAAS6=7j56Nh01O7w=iJ68DD05XfE=5JaHmnXTox+meC0F=x6Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pTLP process amendments
From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
>> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered  Incubator
>> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ?
>> >
>> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the
>> > podlings that you might be referring to.
>>
>> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
>
> Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If
> the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do
> about it :-P

Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the
only question is how the podling gets closed down.  Presumably things would go
something like this:

1.  Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution.
2.  Board passes pTLP resolution.
3.  IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling.

> Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
> of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC.  I'm just
> pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...

I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all.  Odds are that most or
all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC members
for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at consensus
in favor of the pTLP process.  Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable
that the wider IPMC would stand in the way.

Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment, even
if we remain skeptical of the model.  I'm happy that it's not being run under
the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the way.
The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where
the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of
friction.

Marvin Humphrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org