Can you add your concerns to the end each of the wiki pages? I intend to update my proposal to clear up the apprehensions that you seem to have. You can then remove/amend your concerns from the wiki proposal. I will quickly state that “naughty lists” are not part of the mentor-reboot proposal.
Thanks! Regards, Alan > On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > > I think the cures are all problematic and might be worse than the disease. > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org > <mailto:r...@apache.org>> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> at this point we have had a few lively threads >>> discussing three somewhat different proposals: >>> #1 mentor re-boot >>> #2 pTLP >>> #3 Ross's strawman http://s.apache.org/8eS >>> it feels to me that all three need additional work >>> to be done before we can have any reasonable >>> consensus around them (let alone voting). >>> >>> Wearing my chair hat, I would like to suggest that >>> the next step should be: for each proposal we identify >>> points that are going to block consensus (AKA would >>> result in -1 vote if it comes to a vote). I suggest we >>> do it on the wiki pages themselves (I'll wikify Ross's >>> proposal tonight). Not editing the wikis but simply >>> collecting this feedback as the last section in each >>> proposal. The idea would be to identify all such >>> points in a week or so. >>> >>> Sounds good? >> >> To follow up. Each of the proposals: >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MentorRebootProposal > > > "An active mentor is removed from a podling if that mentor does not > review/sign off on a release." > > The above implies the foundation has a pool of mentors able to > consistently meet every reporting requirement in a timely manner, without > regard to personal or professional obstacles. I don't see it. For an > organization almost entirely made up of volunteers this seems overly > optimistic. There is only a small core membership who are capable and > willing to do this as evidenced by a skim of history of general@incubator > and members@. Perhaps this core group will end up shouldering the > incubation load in its entirety. Although sadly this is more or less the > current state of affairs, individual podlings do come with new mentors not > part of the "professional membership" motivated to see at least that > specific podling through. It's also risky to expect mentors kicked from a > podling to be okay with it and want to try again, especially if listed on > some "naughty list" to the board. > > > >> >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Strawman >> <https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Strawman> > > > "Only ASF members on the PPMC will have binding votes for the releases." > > This proposal seems better than the others in my estimation, but doesn't > allow podlings full investment in their own release management. The members > on the PPMC who have binding votes will drive the release process out of > necessity. Once the podling graduates and the members on the PPMC leave to > resume other interests or duties, only then for the first time is the > project running their own releases. I think it was better to let the > podling own their release process but have the IPMC (or equivalent) have an > up-or-down vote afterward as a check on their activities. > > > >> >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2 >> <https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorV2> >> > > This proposal revokes merit earned by existing IPMC members and reboots > incubator supervision as a "sub-board" limited to 15 members. How members > apply to this board is not specified. It is suggested the current board > make recommendations to the board for their replacements, a very > unmeritocratic suggestion that is quite surprising. It's not clear at all > how the membership can address issues with this "sub-board" as they can > with the Board. I think this proposal takes the likely outcome of the first > proposal, that only a small core group of "professional membership" can > manage sufficient activity as mentors to not be kicked from podlings, and > codifies it with new structure and bylaws. Maybe in the end this is > admitting reality. However, discussion of this proposal also floated the > idea that the "sub-board" be later given authority to supervise the affairs > of established TLPs, which is deeply problematic* and I suspect still > hovers in the wings. I would hope not. > > "All proposals for new ASF projects must include an initial PMC chair and > an initial set of PMC members. These people must be acceptable to the > board. It is the responsibility of the Incubator Committee to vett these > people. All of them must have experience on existing PMCs" > > This doubles down on the aspect of the Strawman proposal where PPMC members > are powerless to vote on releases. Here they are powerless to make any and > all project management decisions about their own software they brought to > Apache. It's not mentoring if you make all of the decisions for them. > > * - Find me any PMC of any TLP that would welcome the self-introduction > of newly empowered meddlers who by definition are uninformed of their > project particulars. > > > >> now has the feedback gathering section at the end. >> I am done with my personal feedback. Please provide >> yours. >> >> Here's the criteria you can apply when deciding whether >> to spend time on this or not: imagine that the proposal >> the way it is written were to come to a vote. If at that point >> you'd be inclined to vote -1 -- please let us know NOW. >> >> Using a VOTE thread as a forcing function for folks to >> provide feedback would be *really* unfortunate. >> >> Also, please try to keep 'deal breakers' section as small >> as possible (pushing all the non-critical piece of your >> feedback to the 'suggestions' section). When in doubt >> (even if it is -0) -- make it go to suggestions. >> >> The only items that belong to 'dealbreakers' are the ones >> that would *strongly* motivate you to vote -1 >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
