Yes, dev is the place to do it. Ross
Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Senior Technology Evangelist Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation On 20 July 2013 23:04, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
