Hi Rich - I have read it and I think that it is really good. My concern isn't with the document at all - I think that it would have been great to have earlier. IMHO, it should not be a measuring stick as much as a teaching tool.
Mentors helping podlings learn what is meant by The Apache Way and what sorts of things can be seen in successful podlings and TLPs. Once the mentors feel that a podling has achieved this understanding this document doesn't really need to be used as criteria. As soon as it does then the metrics begin to lose their meaning. The concerns about adding of PPMC members began to feel like we were going down that road even though that doesn't seem to be in the maturity model explicitly. It just highlighted a concern that I have about such metrics. I don't want to take away from the value of the maturity model and the work that has been put into it in any way. The 7 Habits of Successful Podlings really is a great idea and would make an interesting article. :) Thanks, --larry On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 11/05/2015 12:49 PM, larry mccay wrote: > > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here. > > > > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but > > criteria checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not > > actually develop more healthy communities just communities that can > > get the boxes checked. > > > > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of > > natural growth they should not be required otherwise they will be > > done artificially. > > Given your comments, I'm curious if you've read the document we're > discussing. It's here: > https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.ht > ml > > It's a set of interview questions for evaluation. None of them can > really be considered checkboxes, since every one of them requires > quite a bit of research and thought to fill out, and hardly any of > them will have a clear yes or no answer, but are rather a goal that we > all continually strive towards. (Sure, some of them are clearly yes or > no, but most are not.) > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz > > <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > >> <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > >>> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not > >>> yet). And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread > >>> let me explain > >> why. > >> > >> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other > >> general@ thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to > >> yet another bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly > >> require all projects to complete. > >> > >> We should not be trying to force rote learning. Every community > >> is different. > >> > >> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more > >> overhead. Forcing projects to feel like they have to report > >> monthly is against what we should be about. I believe that the > >> IPMC should be imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the > >> Board requires from the full projects. To that end, having > >> mentors explicitly sign-off is fair - but, additional paperwork > >> is not. -- justin > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > - -- > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iEYEARECAAYFAlY9BcIACgkQXP03+sx4yJPiSgCeJCN75hYHUk4ZQFsSGgq/yKsw > nIsAnRM7MS6FmrRJfNvZL3f3Hi8TzdIm > =QDyV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
