The PPMC held a vote on our private list to withdraw from the Apache Incubator. We did this for reason of discretion, similar to how new PPMC members are voted in, and for lack of any formal process to conduct such a vote. John D. Ament asked us to vote again "to keep our own processes simple", so this vote is in accordance with that request.
8 votes to leave carry over from the private list, including 7 of our 12 PPMC members [1]. There were no 0 or -1 votes cast. IPMC +1 Sheng Wu PPMC +7 Adrian Cole, Bas van Beek, José Carlos Chávez, Kristof Adriaenssens, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya, Brian Devins-Suresh, Lance Linder Here's the private thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b47dc4cdce50ca5d4229d73d2ac745904e3a4b70bebfabe1cbf7c55a@%3Cprivate.zipkin.apache.org%3E Below is the description of the vote, which we'll extend here for 72 hours. Folks who have formerly voted can feel free to vote again. ---- It has been the experience from more than one of us that the Apache Incubator is more stressful and requires more effort than initially anticipated or is necessary. This vote recommends we leave the incubator back to the OpenZipkin org and carry on as we did. Here is some background. I will not cite here. If you are a committer you can also express your point of view with or without citing. Your opinions matter and I hope you all vote. Process and policy ambiguity has been ever present and cost us a lot of time and energy. The incubator spends more energy on failing us than helping us. Tooling gaps, whether related to process management, source verification or multiple repositories have impacted us as well. We have lost considerable velocity since attempting to join. Even if we graduate, there is no guarantee strictness felt so far won't carry over. The burdens don't stop here, there is a lot of fear about our greater community, OpenZipkin and how to fireproof branding across what is Apache and what is not. This is not only a cultural miss for us, but yet more overhead and also tension. We still have to maintain the old namespace, and we also get tension from the incubator that the old namespace exists. Probably many projects can control their whole ecosystem but we cannot and as far as I know do not desire to either. We are all the same class. Some large projects can afford incubator strictness and carry on despite these hurdles and lack of tools. Small or mono repo projects have far less work anyway. Those with larger projects usually have fulltime staff to address the gaps, write nice websites navigating process, make tools etc. It is costly and we are frankly by definition not rich. Moreover, OpenZipkin is culturally against building things that require effort to get working. Our very first act as a part of a community was to remove the burden of forcing users to build from source. There is definitely conflict with us and a culture preoccupied with source ceremony and without interest to the impacts on volunteers or the quality if the experience. This mismatch has led to many problems that distract us from our purpose as a project in ways including time displacement and low morale. This is despite multiple escalations from our mentors. For reasons of resources, poor experience and cultural incompatibility, I recommend we leave the incubator and re-unify as OpenZipkin again. If you vote -1, it is to remain. Please mention concrete efforts you will take personally to address the problems, and which responsibilities you will take on, if you vote -1. Voting ends 3 days from today, i.e. midnight UTC on 2019-06-17 http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?year=2019&month= 06&day=17 [1] https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/zipkin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
