incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:36:56 GMT
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Arvind Prabhakar <arvind@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
>> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
>> wrote:
>> > ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering
>> > PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?...
>>
>> How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active
>> mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring
>> minimal interaction with the IPMC?
>>
>
> In spirit it may not be very different, but in practice it is the polar
> opposite. As someone who has worked through the incubation of a few
> projects both as an initial committer as well as a mentor, I feel that the
> biggest weakness of the current Incubator is it's very strength of being
> all inclusive of different interpretations/understandings of the goals of
> incubation. With every IPMC member having their own close-to-heart issues
> and inclinations, along with their good intentions, I don't think we are
> doing very much to help the podlings understand the principals of Apache
> Way or learn self-governance that works best for their communities.
> Instead, we often end up prescribing things which go beyond the charter of
> the Incubator, just to establish a sense of comfort in ensuring we have met
> our responsibilities.

It's not the central Incubator folks like our regular release
reviewers and report contributors who invent these extra criteria --
it's individual Mentors out on the podling lists.  Inaccuracy and
overreach on general@incubator is self-correcting, precisely because
this is where everyone comes together.  When inaccuracy and overreach
out on individual podling dev lists, whether that gets corrected
depends on whether the podling is fortunate enough to have a
well-rounded collection of active Mentors.

> Therefore, I too favor the idea of a smaller, well-defined, tactical IPMC
> that:
> a) establishes a clear objective criteria for growth and graduation
>     including the necessary processes and policies,

The objective of establishing clear policy documentation is certainly
not going to be made any easier by atomizing the Incubator.  Instead,
Mentors who have strong opinions and strong personalities will
entrench provincial points of view in the podlings they oversee. When
we finally come together, it will be that much more painful to
establish consensus, whether that is to discuss policy on
general@incubator or legal-discuss@apache, or when the Board comes
into conflict with a TLP that received bad advice as a podling.

As someone who has worked hard building consensus for policy
documentation at Apache, and who has seen that hard work pay off when
Incubator threads which would have been contended several years ago
are now settled quickly, I certainly agree that documenting clear
objective criteria is valuable.  But nothing about the present makeup
of the Incubator gets in the way of pursuing that objective -- it's
the opposite.  Its because we resolve our differences in small amounts
here that we do not end up as irreconcilable factions later.

Marvin Humphrey

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


Mime
View raw message