incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <r...@gardler.me>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))
Date Mon, 04 Mar 2019 06:50:04 GMT
That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people...

I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the experiments) or any of the
derivatives that came from it. I think I have changed my position. Largely based on the fact
that every single project I've discussed the ASF with in the last 3-5 years has had a very
inaccurate perception of how the ASF works. I believe a large part of this is due, in part,
to the issues being discussed in this thread.

I do not understand how a foundation which prides itself in having very little bureaucratic
red tape can be seen as having so much red tape. The projects I talk to just want to build
software. It used to be that the ASF focused on running the legal and operational aspects
of the foundation projects and developers on projects wrote code. I'm not sure that's true
anymore.

We need to fix it.

I look forward to hearing how the IPMC will seek to strip down the bureaucracy and get back
to mentoring the incoming projects on how the ASF is structured so they can get (relatively)
quick and clear answers to their questions.

Ross

________________________________________
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:19 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check
(was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler <ross@gardler.me> wrote:

> If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to
> act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the
> foundation.
>
>...

> Podlings would only become full TLPs once they have demonstrated their
> ability to do formal releases.
>

The above pair of concepts was offered in $priorCycle as "provisional TLPs"
(pTLP). I believe the idea ended when Sam pointed out that if a pTLP is
trusted, then why not just call it a TLP and trust it to label its releases
appropriately? Thus, just create TLPs immediately for a "podling"

[ I know Ross knows this; but for $others who may want to look at
historical proposals, and compare/contrast to current discussion ... search
for "pTLP" ]

Cheers,
-g

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


Mime
View raw message