+1 for Chris's proposal. Without diminishing the creativity applied to solving problems with the incubator, perhaps the better solution is to trade those problems for tractable ones. -C
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > And how could the below proposal return without me passing along > > my comment regarding it - if we’re going to emulate the board and > TLPs, etc., why emulate it when we could cut through the middle man > and simply rely on the board to do so? I guess to protect the board > from an influx of “incubating” projects (+30-40 at this point in time?) > I myself as a board member would welcome this. > > What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the > IPMC/Incubator/etc., is to return to the notion of pTLPs which were > proposed earlier which I would most wholeheartedly support. > > TL;DR > > 1. Incubation yes, Incubator no > a. (all Incubator documentation, active folks, etc., become part of the > pool of [incoming project VP]) > b. IPMC is dissolved > c. We create a new “Incubation PMC” that includes most active members of > Incubator currently (those who are good at reviewing releases; watching > projects, > etc.) > > 2. All incoming projects are proposed directly as pTLPs (provisional > TLPs) > - provisional part is defined as: > a. 3 members of new Incubation PMC from #1c > assigned as PMC and potentially VP of incoming project > b. PMC += all incoming folks from proposal > c. board VOTEs to approve incoming projects > d. project retirement happens same as it currently does, with Attic > support > > To me this would solve the problem of AWOL or mentors who don’t sign off. > Mentoring happens via new Incubation PMC who are assigned > to the PMCs of incoming pTLPs. Project VP is either one of those > Incubation PMC > members, or via Ross’s suggestion below, the most active person > or “Champion” of the incoming project. The health of these projects are > monitored > by the Incubation PMC and reported on monthly directly to the board > instead of hidden > inside the Incubator report each month, without sign off. All of the other > problems > would seem to go away too IMO. > > My 2c. > > Cheers, > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Date: Friday, December 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: RE: Incubator report sign-off > >>Strawman: >> >>What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the >>project. That is contributing code, voting on releases and generally >>engaging with the community, they would be a better mentor since they >>have a vested interest in the project itself. Sure, we might reduce the >>number of projects coming into the foundation but (IMHO) that is not a >>problem. Our goal as a foundation is not to be large, it is to be high >>quality. >> >>Maybe we should simply scrap the idea of "mentors" and change the role of >>the "champion" to one of an initial committer who will help build an >>Apache project as it incubates and into being a TLP. >> >>We could scrap the role of shepherd and change the role of mentors. A >>team of 9 mentors would meet monthly to review *all* podlings reports (as >>submitted by the champion). Their responsibility is not to engage with >>the projects but to review the reports crafted by the champion. Any >>follow up actions would be taken by a single mentor and podlings >>(especially the champion) are expected to address the issues raised. >> >>If a champion's priorities change during the course of incubation then >>the project must find another champion (potentially from within their own >>ranks) who is sufficiently qualified and committed to take on the >>responsibility. The important thing is that the Champion is personally >>invested in seeing the podling succeed and acts as a true mentor (as >>opposed to someone with a title and an entry on a web page). The champion >>is still answerable to the podling community. Where conflict arises >>within the community they can call upon the IPMC mentoring team to ask >>for independent guidance. >> >>This model is almost identical to the way the board and TLPs work (where >>Champions are roughly equivalent to PMC Chairs and mentors (nee >>shepherds) are roughly equivalent to Directors and he monthly meeting is >>roughly equivalent to the monthly board meeting to review TLP reports). >>I've designed it this way (and proposed the same solution before) because >>it is proven to work for TLPs and we have tooling to assist with the >>process. >> >>I look forward to the PMC tearing this strawman proposal apart and (most >>importantly) suggesting alternatives and/or tweaks of value. We've been >>skirting this issue for far too long. Things have improved (thanks to all >>who have worked hard on this), but we have not yet solved the problem. >> >>Ross >> >>Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. >>A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >>Roman Shaposhnik >>Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 10:11 AM >>To: general@incubator.apache.org >>Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off >> >>Hi Rich! >> >>Thanks for raising this point and giving us a bit more of a forcing >>function to tackle an old problem: accountability for mentors. >> >>On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: >>> I certainly don't expect that every mentor has their full attention on >>> a podling every month, but I do expect that a podling that cares about >>> its incubation will seek out that mentor sign-off, and that the >>> mentors who have committed to help a podling into the family will have >>> a few moments every few months to look in and approve a report. >> >>I've been thinking about this for quite some time (and trying to seek a >>solution by various means) and it seems to be that we have to start from >>a very basic expectation setting. >> >>First of all, *my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project >>are more of redundancy or HA consideration. IOW, my expectation that a >>project needs to have at least one active mentor at all times, but it >>doesn't have to be the same person. Thus, I expect at least a signle >>sign-off on the report and I don't mind if it ends up being a single one >>too much. >> >>Second biggest expectation that I have is that mentors are extension of >>the IPMC, not part of the poddling. They are akin to professors or >>faculty members -- they are not part of the student body. As such we, as >>IPMC are accountable to make sure that mentors perform their duties. My >>expectation is that it is as unfair to ask poddling to actively pursue >>mentors who are missing in action as it would be unfair to ask students >>to hire detectives to hunt down professors who don't show up for class. >>What is fair, is to provide poddlings with a semi-format feedback channel >>for IPMC to monitor things like mentors MIA. >> >>I would like to pause here and ask everybody to chime in with what they >>thing are the right expectations on the above two points. >> >>> But I wonder if we might, as the Board does, reject reports that have >>> no sign-off, and force projects to report again the following month, >>> in an attempt to require them to engage with their mentor(s) a little >>>more? >> >>As was pointed by John, we're already rejecting reports with no mentor >>sign-off. Before we potentially take it one step further I'd like to get >>clarity on the expectations first (and then I can volunteer to document >>that as well!). >> >>Thanks, >>Roman. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
