TL;DR I think this is a good idea.
I thought long and hard about this during the weekend and I’ve changed my mind
about this; I’ll spare you my handwringing thought processes. Some things that
I personally would like to see:
- do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP
- ComDev should be charged w/ augmenting their maturity model with “profiles”
which can be applied to such TLPs, e.g.
- committers==PMC
- codebase going through IP clearance
- PMC considers TLP properly diverse
- PMC considers TLP properly active
- item 2 is too strict
Regards,
Alan
> On Jan 23, 2015, at 5:42 AM, 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
>
> 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
