In my experience incubating Calcite, the “overhead” was mostly the infrastructure and process, not politics. (If you think the incubator is political, you haven’t seen politics…) The process is necessary (mostly) to ensure clean IP. The infrastructure, less so. So, if we’re talking about how to reduce the burden on podlings, those are the areas I would focus on.
Roman’s proposed reform places more responsibility on podling PMCs and, by implication, the mentors embedded in those PMCs. I am not sure how well that would work in practice given the ongoing problem of absentee mentors. The IPMC epitomizes the “it takes a village to raise a child”, in particular with village elders stepping in with help/advice from time to time. It would be a shame to lose that. Julian > On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > " This is that proverbial "political overhead" that a lot of folks are > accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which > is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true > at IPMC level today." > > +1000 > > -----Original Message----- > From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman > Shaposhnik > Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the > Apache Incubator) > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>> I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it >>> seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago: >>> what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC >>> an make it more board like? >>> >>> Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make >>> sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a >>> change to the current policies (or to Ross' >>> point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)). >>> >>> But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs >>> and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense? >> >> I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for >> the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor. > > Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) but > and extremely fair observation. > > As far as I'm concerned the issue of R&Rs of IPMC is in a state of a > stalemate right now. We clearly have a "everything's fine lets just add more > policy" constituency vs. "IPMC should be small and more board like" crowd. > > The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation is > growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The bad news is > that because of the current mentality I don't see the types of unfortunate > threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime soon. > > This is that proverbial "political overhead" that a lot of folks are accusing > ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is > grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true at > IPMC level today. > > It is clear to me that the change has very little chance of coming from > within IPMC. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
