On 2015-08-03 09:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
...who else thinks the movement towards empowering
PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?...
How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active
mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring
minimal interaction with the IPMC?
As you say, releases can - if done right - be done with minimal friction
from the IPMC, so the issue seems more to be an issue of perception and
procedure than an issue of policy. There is a clear distinction between
how the board acts towards TLPs and how the IPMC acts towards podlings,
and in my opinion there should be: TLPs are _expected to know how to
act, how to release, how to self-govern_. They have learned this through
trial and error, many of them in the Incubator, and have built up
procedures and cultures that enable them to (mostly) govern themselves.
Podlings are _in training to be like that_, and even with 4, 5, 6
mentors, it has been shown time and time again (as I believe Marvin also
mentioned), that there will be issues with the first one or two
releases, as is only natural when a project is learning how to do
Apache-style releases, and then the IPMC says "hang on, you need to do
these things differently, fix this, that, and then do this", and then
the podling slowly adapts to the way we do releases. As we continue to
let in more and more podlings, it is also safe to assume, that the
number of 'initial release bugs' will increase, thus this system becomes
even more important.
To sum up my view: We have a release process that has shown many times
that it both works and is necessary for podlings, especially on the
first release. I think this is awesome, and I don't see the need to
change this specific policy - *but perhaps we could ease the process, as
I suggested last week, through better tooling and education.*
Allow me to also ask this question: If there is a _visible_ need for
this existing policy, as has been shown on numerous occasions, how is
empowering PPMCs by removing the policy going to solve or help the
issue? I am all for a hands-off approach if it leads to a desired goal
(wholly or partially), but this specific proposition seems to be
counter-intuitive to me.
Therefore, I will suggest the same thing I did last week:
- Keep the existing policy
- Make better processes and tooling to aid podlings in their first
release(s) (see my previous email for details)
- Consider a mentor rotation/swap-in principle to ensure a fresh
unbiased/non-myopic governance.
Heck, I'd even, to some degree, recommend these steps for TLPs, but eh,
that's another story :)
If we can create procedures and tools that can do most of the basic
legal and structural checks in new release candidates, we could cut down
the time spent arguing about the nitty gritty details, and a lot of the
unfortunate situations where a podling needs to release fast, but gets
caught in a legal issue, could be avoided or at the very least be
resolved a lot faster.
With regards,
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
