Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 3:59 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 22:31 David Nalley wrote: >> ... > >> Greg - I propose that you, Ross (sorry for volunteering you), and I >> pick an incubating project in need of mentor attention and make this >> as streamlined as we can. Let's

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

FTR: I think the biggest risk to the foundation are not these procedural aspects, like releases, but the gradual but inexorable decline in our culture and our principles. That is, or at least should be, the bigger concern. And I think the Incubator should take that risk much more seriously and

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 9:47 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi > > Thanks for the idea and offer of help. > > > 1) Concurrent with the start of a release vote by a PPMC, the IPMC is > > to be notified that that vote is happening. IPMC members are > > encouraged to participate in the vote process on

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 1:24 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > >>> >>> Q: Does the IPMC want to produce non-ASF releases? > > My answer is yes! I want podlings to be on a path towards graduation! I > recognize multiple requirements. The path may differ for each podling. I’m > the end there are two

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, > That Infra and the board will allow a podling to put packages containing the > WIP-disclaimer on dist.a.o as long as those packages Infra have already confirmed that’s OK, legal have said it OK with some conditions, including if incubator releases are considered special. There is a

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi Thanks for the idea and offer of help. > 1) Concurrent with the start of a release vote by a PPMC, the IPMC is > to be notified that that vote is happening. IPMC members are > encouraged to participate in the vote process on the PPMC list where > it is happening. This has been discussed

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

IMO, the key change as already been made: There is now a WIP-disclaimer. AFAICT, the rest of this thread has been an attempt to create an objective process around a subjective topic (in this case risk). The better use of time may be to just launch an experiment by making the one change

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:24 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > >> This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on releases. > > > > That is not in the Bylaws. Stop making stuff up. > > That the way it’s been explained to me, several times, by experienced ASF > people, that only

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, I’m not referring to a recent thing, I’m referring to in part to this [1]. I suggest you read what Mark wrote there, but even before this JIRA many Apache podlings have made non-offical releases for a number of reasons some in line with policy (and some not). I can point you to one

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 06:00 Julian Feinauer wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I think Justins Answer refers to the WIP-Disclaimer Aware of that, but disagree. It is way more: the IPMC vote is performed to establish legal oversight and shield. I suggest that is burdensome and should be tossed. PS.: Allow

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi Greg, I think Justins Answer refers to the WIP-Disclaimer which was recently added to the incubator Policy Page: https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#disclaimers A Podlings releasing with the WIP Disclaimer is no ASF release, so I consider Justins response is no misdirection

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 22:31 David Nalley wrote: >... > Greg - I propose that you, Ross (sorry for volunteering you), and I > pick an incubating project in need of mentor attention and make this > as streamlined as we can. Let's focus on educating and enabling and > not gatekeeping. Let's prove

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 00:33 Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Q: Does the IPMC want to produce non-ASF releases? > > A: We already are Not true, as you well know. Whether we call the above a lie, or misdirection is left to the reader. The IPMC currently attempts to ensure all podling releases

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, > Q: Does the IPMC want to produce non-ASF releases? A: We already are, but there are some constraints around what to calling them, branding and when they can be placed. (And these are not IPMC policies.) Thanks, Justin -

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, >> This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on releases. > > That is not in the Bylaws. Stop making stuff up. That the way it’s been explained to me, several times, by experienced ASF people, that only PMC votes are binding on releases and podlings are not mentioned in

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

>> >> Q: Does the IPMC want to produce non-ASF releases? My answer is yes! I want podlings to be on a path towards graduation! I recognize multiple requirements. The path may differ for each podling. I’m the end there are two outcomes! Thanks Greg! Regards, Dave >> >> -g > > >

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:32 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:17 PM Justin Mclean > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> Hoops constructed by the IPMC. Like a secondary release vote on general@ >> >> This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:17 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Hoops constructed by the IPMC. Like a secondary release vote on general@ > > This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on releases. That is not in the Bylaws. Stop making stuff up. > So you're saying

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, As an aside for any project looking for mentors you can see what projects they mentor at teh bottom of this page: https://incubator.apache.org/clutch/ And you can also check if they have been signing off reports here (if you are an ASF member or IPMC member):

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

A vanity mentor is a person with a big name and a small amount of time. Projects go for the name, the mentor goes for the ego boost and then reality catches up. But, hey, you are "mentoring" 12 projects! On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:18 PM David Jencks wrote: > What’s a “vanity mentor“? How do I

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, > They are gated day by day by day. Empirically, we already know the podlings > dislike this. Empirically? I would say it’s more anecdotally, (and the anonymous podling survey has actually never brought this up as an issue), and “day by day by day” is an exaggeration. Other than the

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, > Hoops constructed by the IPMC. Like a secondary release vote on general@ This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on releases. So you're saying implementations of ASF bylaws are "arbitrarily defined hoops”? There could be other ways of dealing with this bylaw that

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:10 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Here's an idea... The IPMC focuses on supporting mentors to do their job > rather than forcing project developers and their mentors to jump through > arbitrarily defined hoops. > > What "arbitrarily defined hoops” are you referring

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

What’s a “vanity mentor“? How do I recognize one before a podling has a significant history? Who is currently accepting these vanity mentors and how would they stop doing so? Hindsight is 20-20... I have no crystal ball. David Jencks Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Justin

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, > Here's an idea... The IPMC focuses on supporting mentors to do their job > rather than forcing project developers and their mentors to jump through > arbitrarily defined hoops. What "arbitrarily defined hoops” are you referring to? ASF policy or something else? > The IPMC doesn't need

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases) Hi, > I am for option (F) with the addition of Myrle’s [REVIEW] until such time as > the podling is fully compliant with Apache Release Policy and goes through > the usual process. Abiding by the Apache Release Pol

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi, > I am for option (F) with the addition of Myrle’s [REVIEW] until such time as > the podling is fully compliant with Apache Release Policy and goes through > the usual process. Abiding by the Apache Release Policy would remain a > Graduation Requirement. I’ll note not a single podling has

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

I see I was volunteer... OK let's do it. --- Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry From: David Nalley Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 8:31:29 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

words Jim is right IMHO --- Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry From: Dave Fisher Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:22:26 AM To: general Subject: Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases) Hi Ted, This subthrea

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi Ted, This subthread as named by Greg is really about this: > On Aug 11, 2019, at 5:56 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > See further below for an unfortunately trimmed thread. A couple paragraphs > that I wrote early-thread are important to add: > > > Option (F): stop calling them official ASF

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Dave, I understand the problem with long delays. What I don't understand is how the proposal changes any of that. 90% of project release still require additional votes. How will that change? Every other change is peripheral. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:37 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > > > > On Aug

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

> On Aug 12, 2019, at 1:34 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Dave Fisher > wrote: > >> >> >>> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:24 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> > On Aug 12,

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

> > I'd like to see the IPMC get out of the way of the podlings' releases. I > see no reason for us to be a gate, and many more reasons to back off and > let podlings get their work done. > I strongly agree with your sentiment, even if I differ with your tactics a bit. I think that they are

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > > > > On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:24 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > >> ... > "The Apache Podling Foo has voted

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:24 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> >>> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> ... "The Apache Podling Foo has voted on releasing Foo 1.2.2 (url and pointers here). We have 3 (or more)

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

No, I don't mean to blame the mentors... It is a hard job, mostly uncelebrated and thankless and the 1st place people point to when problems arise. Also, in general, most mentors are those who suffer from volunteeritis and tend to bite off more than they can chew. But the reality is that they

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi - > On Aug 12, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > This observer IPMC role sounds interesting. That would make it less > intimidating for people who can help verify a generic release but are > unfamiliar with the domain itself. We currently have Shepherds to look into podlings at

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi - > On Aug 12, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Julian Feinauer > wrote: > > Hi Ted, > > dont get me wrong, I'm rather new to the ASF, the incubator and especially > the IPMC. So my perspective might be different. But, I understand the > frustration that some may have and I leant that there have been

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

> On Aug 12, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:20 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> ... >>> This does NOT mean that the IPMC should be gatekeepers though... Just as >>> PMC chairs are the "eyes

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:24 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > ... > >> "The Apache Podling Foo has voted on releasing Foo 1.2.2 (url and > >> pointers here). We have 3 (or more) binding votes from mentors. We are > >> giving the IPMC and

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

> On Aug 12, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:20 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> ... >> This does NOT mean that the IPMC should be gatekeepers though... Just as >> PMC chairs are the "eyes and ears of the board", mentors are the "eyes and >> ears of the

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi Ted, dont get me wrong, I'm rather new to the ASF, the incubator and especially the IPMC. So my perspective might be different. But, I understand the frustration that some may have and I leant that there have been many trials to change things which didn’t go the way we wanted. The "fear" or

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Julian, I love the sentiment, but increasing the probability of mentor-only approval by 10x is going to take a lot of something that we haven't had the last five times we have tried to do this. The current system is a bit frustrating, but having what amounts to mentors-at-large like Justin and a

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Hi Ted, but instead of questioning the Bylaws or introducing two classes of artifacts I would rather try to improve mentor votes as this is something we can do incubator internal. And its always better to cure the cause then the symptoms : ) Julian Am 12.08.19, 16:44 schrieb "Ted Dunning" :

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:20 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > ... > This does NOT mean that the IPMC should be gatekeepers though... Just as > PMC chairs are the "eyes and ears of the board", mentors are the "eyes and > ears of the IPMC". The IPMC "vote" should be little more than a formality. > IMO,

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

This observer IPMC role sounds interesting. That would make it less intimidating for people who can help verify a generic release but are unfamiliar with the domain itself. On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:37, Julian Feinauer wrote: > Hi, > > I'm answering to this (old) thread as the new one branched

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

We were handling votes like that in OpenWhisk up until graduation. Mentor votes carry over to the IPMC vote. On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:20, Jim Jagielski wrote: > We have always had a mindset that we (the foundation) want to make it as > "brain dead easy" for people to download, use, and

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

We have always had a mindset that we (the foundation) want to make it as "brain dead easy" for people to download, use, and consume ASF projects. This means that they don't need to worry about compliance, IP provenance, etc. Incubator releases are a special case. The expectation is, and should

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, I'm answering to this (old) thread as the new one branched up with a different topic. Personally, during my time in the first podling I learned a lot by doing Apache Releases. First, as contributor, then as PPMC and finally as RM. And this is something valuable and if a project wants to

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

, August 11, 2019 5:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases) See further below for an unfortunately trimmed thread. A couple paragraphs that I wrote early-thread are important to add: Option (F): stop calling them official

Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

See further below for an unfortunately trimmed thread. A couple paragraphs that I wrote early-thread are important to add: Option (F): stop calling them official ASF releases, which means PMC votes are not required. > In that case voting would not be required and they wouldn’t have to

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > I see no problem with using our infrastructure to distribute F/OSS > > materials. Why would the Foundation want to be against that? If it is > > labeled properly, then ... roll with it. > > It often isn’t labelled properly.

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, > I see no problem with using our infrastructure to distribute F/OSS > materials. Why would the Foundation want to be against that? If it is > labeled properly, then ... roll with it. It often isn’t labelled properly. There’s a reasonable risk that some of what would be placed there and

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 5:29 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote: (dunno why Justin keeps trimming sources for his quotes...) > > Option (F): stop calling them official ASF releases, which means PMC > votes > > are not required. > > In that case voting would not be required and they

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, > But, assuming that each podling has three active mentors, each podling should > have 3 +1 IPMC vote before the RC goes to general@ and then is, as Sebb says > below basically a "lazy" consensus vote as 3 +1 are present and if no one > throws in a -1 it will pass regularly and is a

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, > Option (F): stop calling them official ASF releases, which means PMC votes > are not required. In that case voting would not be required and they wouldn’t have to follow ASF policy. If they are not official releases then we probably can’t release or distribute them on ASF infrastructure.

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Option (F): stop calling them official ASF releases, which means PMC votes are not required. On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:04 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > One of the incubator pain points is the double voting on releases first by > the podling and then by the IPMC. > > Historically there been

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, > If the IPMC members have +1ed the vote on the dev list, won't these > votes count if the vote is continued on the general@ list? Yep they count. > Do they really have to re-affirm their votes? It’s good if they do but not a requirement, it’s best of the email contains how many IPMC

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, > Another variation/option for those using the WIP disclaimer might be that > since the WIP disclaimer kind of says this release doesn't have "full > official" status from an ASF point of view then one way of thinking about > it is that perhaps full official IPMC endorsement is less of a

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, thanks Justin for bringing that up. I have perhaps a different perspective than many others because I was / am mostly active in several podlings and just very recently became IPMC member (no apache member). But, assuming that each podling has three active mentors, each podling should have

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 12:45, Paul King wrote: > > Another variation/option for those using the WIP disclaimer might be that > since the WIP disclaimer kind of says this release doesn't have "full > official" status from an ASF point of view then one way of thinking about > it is that perhaps

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Another variation/option for those using the WIP disclaimer might be that since the WIP disclaimer kind of says this release doesn't have "full official" status from an ASF point of view then one way of thinking about it is that perhaps full official IPMC endorsement is less of a requirement so

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

option (D) combined with (E) And encourage mentors to vote on dev@ makes sense to me On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:24 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > (D) will still require 2 more IPMC vote? > > (E) will be like (B) in that it will need mentors or other IPMC to vote > in > > podling dev@? > >

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, > (D) will still require 2 more IPMC vote? > (E) will be like (B) in that it will need mentors or other IPMC to vote in > podling dev@? All releases require 3 (or more) +1 votes by a PMC so yes they would require 3 IPMC votes. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

(D) will still require 2 more IPMC vote? (E) will be like (B) in that it will need mentors or other IPMC to vote in podling dev@? On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:04 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > One of the incubator pain points is the double voting on releases first by > the podling and then by

[DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases

Hi, One of the incubator pain points is the double voting on releases first by the podling and then by the IPMC. Historically there been a lot of discussion about this and a couple of proposals to try and change it, but none have been accepted. There have been proposals on alternative ways to