On 23 January 2015 at 14:42, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Roman kicked off a query about "next steps", with links to several wiki > pages on possibilities. The "IncubatorV2" page which describes a > "probationary TLP" is nothing like I have thought about. > > In my mind, a pTLP looks *exactly* like any other PMC. They report directly > to the Board, they have infrastructure like any other project (eg. > FOO.apache.org). But they have two significant differences: > > 1. probationary text is prominent, much like we require "incubating" to be > prominent in various locations/messages for podlings > > 2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members. committers can be > chosen however the community decides. but the *project* is reviewed by > people with (hopefully/theoretically) experience with the Foundation and > its views on communities >
I agree with everything else you write, but the demand for "only ASF Members" seems very hard. If I come to ASF with a community and a project, I really would feel unhappy being cut out of the loop (PMC cares about the community, not the committers following our role definition). Would it not be possible to write "The initial PMC must be comprised of more than 50% ASF Members", or something similar. If this came to vote, I would give it a -1, because we cannot and should not "overrule" an existing community, but merely guide them. rgds jan I > > That's it. By creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then they can > groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to the > PMC. The Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can do > whatever it wants in that regard. > > The Board might not accept a pTLP resolution because it wants more > greybeards on there, to help the community. Removing the "probationary" > label, is up to the pTLP to request, and the Board to approve. It is > usually pretty obvious when a community has reached that point, if you are > talking about active ASF/PMC Members. But the Board would apply its own > level of trust. > > There is a big element here, which didn't exist 12 years ago: the Board's > ability to review many projects. Before the Incubator, there weren't that > many projects. The Directors didn't have a lot of experience with a lot of > breadth. Nowadays, we review the work of *dozens* of projects every month. > If one is a pTLP instead of a regular TLP? Not a big deal. They have some > operational restrictions, but the report should be showing us a typical > Apache community. > > The other aspect is IP clearance and management, which also didn't exist a > dozen years ago (and the Incubator was basically started in response to > some IP problems). We have a much better understanding there. Today, we > have the Incubator performing that, but no reason we can't have pTLPs > managing that process. We file "forms" about clearance with the Incubator, > but really: that should be filed $somehow defined by the VP of Legal > Affairs (and *that* position/process didn't exist until years after the > Incubator was established). > > TLPs are a recognition of a community. We can create probationary > communities, supported by ComDev, Legal, other communities, and reviewed by > the Board. > > Speaking as a Director of the ASF, if a Resolution arrived on the Board's > Agenda to create such a pTLP, then I would be supportive. The pTLP > construct is independent of the Apache Incubator. Anybody is free to define > how they want to approach it, and then ask the Board if they are willing to > try it. > > Cheers, > -g >
