+1. Agree with Greg. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment >There are a few things that I would suggest for "next steps": > >1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll >want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also >start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even >agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements. > >2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional >TLP". >The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do >for >incubating podlings. > >3) Note that I use "provisional", since "probationary" implies you got in >trouble. > >I wouldn't really worry about time frames. This will be a very subjective >process, and every project is different. It will be hard to make a solid >determination on day X in the future. If I were to put my thumb in the >air, >I'd say 6 and 12 months, rather than your 3/6. > >Cheers, >-g > >On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really >> passionate about championing the pTLP experiment. >> To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly: >> #1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic >> about trying a pTLP route (and have a level of support >> from a few board members) will submit a pTLP proposal >> to the board. >> #2 based on how #1 goes we will try to establish a path >> for existing (willing!) podlings to be converted to pTLP. >> A solicitation and details of what to expect will be posted >> on general@ with the expectations of having a couple >> existing podlings as part of the experiment >> >> In about 3 months time frame, if #1 and #2 are moving in the >> right direction, I'd like to start offering pTLP *option* for new >> communities seeking to join ASF. By that time I hope to have >> some amount of documentation detailing the process and pros/cons >> compared to the existing IPMC led model. >> >> In about 6 months time frame I would like to have enough details >> in place to submit to IPMC and start a discussion on whether >> pTLP is a viable model that needs to be encouraged and what >> does it mean for IPMC and ASF Incubation process. >> >> For all practical purposes, consider me a self-appointed pTLP >> champion and please, please help along as much as you can! >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >>
