I'm happy to drive the proposal .. can we do it on dev@? I'm not on the PPMC.
If so, Ant, lets catch up a bit one of these so we can start a Wiki proposal. Maybe target August board meeting at this point? Sanjiva. On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Ross Gardler <[email protected]>wrote: > There needs to be a concrete proposal from this PPMC and its mentors, so > no we are not on track. > > However, Ant did mail me offlist a few days ago to let me know he's been > swamped but does plan to get to this soon. > > Of course the discussion doesn't need to be led by Ant. > > Ross > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------ > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <[email protected]> > Sent: 7/20/2013 9:30 PM > To: dev <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment > > Looks like there was no follow-up to this. Ross are you still on track to > put this forward? > > Sanjiva. > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ross Gardler > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> During the proposal phase for the Stratos podling I floated the idea of >> the IPMC using the podling to experiment with a more streamlined incubation >> process. >> >> It is not my intention to drive this experiment. Ant Elder expressed a >> desire to explore the idea during recent discussions among the IPMC. Whilst >> we were drawing up the Stratos proposal I asked Ant if he would be willing >> to lead the experiment. He agreed. >> >> In this mail I will summarize the relevant parts of the discussion thread >> on the [email protected] list. The intention is to give Ant a >> starting point for the discussions here. It's up to the Stratos community >> to ensure the experiement does not limit the project in any way and up to >> Ant to drive the experiment for the IPMC. Naturally, the IPMC mentors will >> be a very important part of defining the model and feeding back on the >> experiment to the IPMC. I'll be lad to help evaluate as an IPMC member too. >> >> Chris' original skeleton proposal is at [1]. This outlines who is >> responsible for what in the new model. I'll remind the team that the board >> has not discussed the proposals here and a number of board members have >> expressed concern about it, while a couple are actively pushing for it. >> >> The following specific questions were raised during discussions. These >> will need to be addressed in any proposal. >> >> # Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the board? >> >> This is perhaps the biggest potential area for pushback is moving >> oversight for the project to the board. Going to board certainly bypasses >> the problem of the IPMC often getting in the way of efficient process but >> it also removes the valuable input that some members of the IPMC often >> provide. Furthermore, should there be a problem it means it is the board >> that must fix the problem. Podling mentoring is not, traditionally, a role >> the board has ever taken on (fixing broken communities is not the same as >> mentoring fledgling communities). >> >> Note that one Director explicitly stated that he will vote -1 on any >> proposal that has a "podling" reporting directly to the board. This doesn't >> mean it won't be approved by the board, but it does mean it will be >> rigorously discussed. >> >> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins? >> >> We dodged this question in the discussion thread by saying we'd go to >> podling status first. I guess defining this is part of defining the scope >> of the experiment. >> >> # What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in >> good graces? >> >> Here I suggested the criteria would be the same as a TLP. The problem is >> understanding whether we have that documented anywhere. The IPMC has >> addiitonal requirements (e.g. keep the meta-data up-to-date) whilst the >> board has, for the last 12 months or so, been pushing to have TLPs provide >> some of the same meta-data (e.g. last release date, last committer >> addition, last PMC addition). >> >> I suggest trying to come up with using the same criteria for TLPs, >> podlings and pTLPs. Where podlings will have a lower set f expectations >> (i.e. no need to have voted in any committers yet, pTLPs have voted in a >> committer in the last six months but may not have done an approved release >> and TLPs should have a fairly regular flow of committers and releases). >> Note these "metrics" ought not be fixed, they should be seen as guidelines. >> A project with no recent releases that continues to report and answer user >> queries may just be mature, for example. >> >> One measure can be the pTLP PMC membership. Initially it would be only >> the project mentors and champion. Over time active committers from the >> initial committer list are voted into the PMC (recognising merit). So we >> then have a possible measure, if there are 3 members of the pTLP from the >> initial committer list then there are now sufficient binding votes for the >> project to operate as a TLP. >> >> While writing this I realised that we might want to propose an interim >> step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a podling, move to pTLP when >> certain criteria are met (e.g. >3 active binding votes) and then TLP. I've >> not thought this through, just an idea you might consider. >> >> Another commentator observed that "It would probably be good to be clear >> on what are the exact characteristics that make this podling pTLP worthy >> for the future. For example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks." - a >> good observation. The danger here is creating an "us" and "them" >> environment. Perhaps the podling -> pTLP -> TLP idea resolves this - not >> sure. >> >> # What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces? >> >> I don't see this as being any different from a TLP. For a TLP the board >> says "fix it", if it isn't fixed they clear the decks and invite the >> remaining PMC to fix it. If it still isn't fixed it gets axed. What needs >> to be defined is who provides these "fix it" ultimatums and when. >> >> Please be *very* careful here. When we set up the IPMC we said the IPMC >> would do this - that's the main failure point now. It is mob rule. If a >> pTLP reports to board then it's easy, but if reporting to the IPMC it is >> harder. >> >> Note, a Director said " the Board will need a *definition* of >> probation. This is more than just a wiki page. I believe it needs to >> be a page laid down in www.a.o/dev/ that defines the constraints laid >> down upon a "pTLP"" I believe answering the above question will provide >> this. >> >> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes? >> >> Here I don't see any reason for it to be different to podling graduation >> (proven ability to be open to new community members, properly vetted >> release). >> >> # How do we maintain the "podling" brand? >> >> People are familiar with the concept of a podling. The press understands >> the difference between a TLP and a podling. We must not lose this >> distinction. The Apache brand is valuable because of our high quality bar. >> If we dilute that quality by allowing projects to claim they are official >> before they understand what is required of an ASF project we run the risk >> of damaging the brand for all projects. >> >> So there you go. I hope I've done a reasonable job of summarizing a 55+ >> mail thread. >> >> Good luck! >> >> Ross >> >> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal >> > > > > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ > email: [email protected]; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 > 650 265 8311 > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ > > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware > -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/ email: [email protected]; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1 650 265 8311 blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/ Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
