On 11/09/2013 02:23 AM, Jake Farrell wrote: > We have a process in place which graduates a given incubating project to > TLP, why add a middle layer with a pTLP? There are enough steps in the > process, pTLP is not needed in my opinion. >
I wholeheartedly agree. Adding more layers of projects or roles adds complexity. There's already a lot to figure out when you are a new podling. > If mentors are not performing their duties to vote on a given releases for > a podling, then it is up to the IPMC as a whole to help that podling by > doing the do diligence and casting a vote. We all asked to be apart of the > IPMC or where honored by a nomination and accepted the role. It is up to us > to show these podlings what the Apache was really means. These projects > have all come to the ASF and we (the IPMC) have openly voted them into > incubation, its up to us to help them succeed. While this is true in theory it's hard in practice to wrangle those votes together. > > Merit stands above all else, and the contributors that you have pointed out > are all exceptional individuals that have advanced their projects and > continued to do so after graduation within the ASF. There are no short cuts > here, merit is earned. I am 100% behind helping individuals that show > exceptional merit within a podling and deserve to be apart of the IPMC and > have a binding vote. Yes, lets do this. No new structures, minimal risks. The IPMC can fulfill their duty (when appropriate) by identifying people that merit IPMC membership, so less people will have to invest the significant effort of assessing all the many many details for new releases. (I believe I'm thinking objectively about this, but recognize I am perhaps in a biased position) > > -Jake > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>> IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for >>>> example) unless that sub-committee consisted of members of the IPMC. The >>>> reason for this is hat only members of the IPMC are recognized by the >> board >>>> and thus only IPMC members have binding votes. >>> >>> That is what the board has done to date. That is not the only >>> possibility in terms of what the board *could* do, which is much more >>> where my question was leading. >> >> The issue was brought before the Board earlier this week and they have >> explicitly bounced it back to us. Their rationale is that the problem lies >> within the scope of project governance that the Board has delegated to the >> Incubator PMC. The Board has plenty going on these days; I can understand >> that they don't want to get involved in debates over e.g. the nitty gritty >> details of pTLP design. >> >> So, it's our responsibility to design a solution using only the resources >> currently available to us. If we exercise a little creativity and >> flexibility, I don't think we will find ourselves unduly constrained. >> >>> My issue is that granting PMC membership is too big a step for many >>> podling members. Going from being newbie podling member, to a part of a >>> team responsible for 50+ incubator projects is, with the freedom to >>> mentor other podlings, is too big a step for most podling members, and >>> will remain scary even if you attempt to restrict 'powers' through >>> social convention. >> >> That sounds unreasonably pessimistic. Historically, when contributors from >> active podlings have been nominated, vetted and successfully voted onto the >> IPMC, things have worked out very well: >> >> Brian Duxbury (Thrift) >> Richard Hirsch (ESME) >> Marvin Humphrey (Lucy) >> Karl Wright (ManifoldCF) >> Dave Fisher (OpenOffice) >> Andrei Savu (Provisionr) >> >> I'm proud to be part of that group. I would like to see it grow -- in my >> view, the Incubator has erred by not recruiting aggressively enough! >> >>> Whereas, if it were possible to grant a lesser role, which allowed >>> podling members to cast binding votes for their podling alone, we'd >>> likely see a lot more podling members voted into that position (sure, >>> they can only be voted in by Incubator PMC members). >>> >>> I'm afraid I find it very tedious us attempting to shoe-horn the >>> incubator into a structure (a standard PMC) that just doesn't quite fit, >>> rather than seeking a structure that will suit the both the incubator >>> and the foundation, allowing merit to be recognised in individuals at a >>> range of stages within a podlings lifecycle. >> >> I understand exactly where you're coming from: structural flaws in the >> Incubator require Board-level fixes. >> >> The feedback I've taken from the Board is that if we can persuade them >> that a >> structural change is truly in the best interest of the foundation, they >> will >> accomodate us. However, first we need to run some experiments and build >> our >> case. "Incremental, reversible steps", as they say. >> >> Running a pilot pTLP wholly within the Incubator is actually more >> straightforward than running it as an independent TLP. The chain of >> oversight >> is clear: a podling being run as a pTLP is the responsibility of the IPMC, >> not >> the Board. We also don't have to think about things like whether releases >> should go in the Incubator's release area, whether the pTLP is a "podling" >> (it >> is), or whether it is "incubating" (it is). >> >> Marvin Humphrey >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > -- Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net http://www.brondsema.net : personal http://www.splike.com : programming <><
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
