Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A8FB417D05 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:33:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 80860 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2015 03:33:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 80671 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2015 03:33:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 80647 invoked by uid 99); 3 Mar 2015 03:33:09 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 03:33:09 +0000 Received: from mail-qg0-f48.google.com (mail-qg0-f48.google.com [209.85.192.48]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id EA6E41A02BD for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id q107so17435187qgd.7 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:33:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.55.41.219 with SMTP id p88mr9032917qkp.50.1425353587913; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:33:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: From: "John D. Ament" Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 03:33:07 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document To: general@incubator.apache.org, Bertrand Delacretaz , Sam Ruby Cc: Apache Board Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1146c85249a867051059fefe --001a1146c85249a867051059fefe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote: > How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ > From: John D. Ament > Sent: =E2=80=8E3/=E2=80=8E2/=E2=80=8E2015 6:56 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org; > Bertrand Delacretaz; Sam Ruby intertwingly.net> > Cc: Apache Board > Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document > > Roman, > > I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these > proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in > how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like m= e, > I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. > > From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three > existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation > where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an addition= al > member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone > of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cann= ot > ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. > > This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed > by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster extern= al > groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members open= ly > willing to help foster that community. > > I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor > projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward = to > seeing the results. > > John > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > since a few board members requested a detailed document > > outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > action?pageId=3D51812862 > > which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale > > is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered > > good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level > > of standard would be unfair. > > > > At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as > > wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request > > attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of > > a document to be available. > > > > Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit > > the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can > > give you karma, though). > > > > I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy > > in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more > > time to join ASF as a pTLP project. > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org > > > > > --001a1146c85249a867051059fefe--