For those who didn't work on the proposal I can assure you there is no confusion in this incoming community over who makes the decisions.
I recommended the same model I advocate in the IPMC. The model we started with. Champion brings the project in, is responsible if problems arise but is nt active say to day. Mentor (singular) helps guide the community within the operational structure of the ASF. Podling community make decisions (where community is the incoming community plus anyone who steps up). This is how we used to work but over time the IPMC has become a piece of authority and gatekeeping. Multiple mentors pile on, conflicting guidance is given, personal versions of the Apache Way are enforced (from within the IPMC, nit just mentors) etc. (we have discussed this plenty, it's documented on our wiki). The incoming community wanted to play by the current IPMC guidelines. As Markus says it was a decision of the incoming community and I respect it, even if I do not agree with it However, as champion, it is my job to avoid unnecessary churn during proposal. As champion and mentor I have no concerns over the ability of this project to be a healthy Apache TLP. They appear demonstrated that they value their community over red tape! Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Markus Geiß<mailto:mge...@mifos.org> Sent: 12/6/2015 3:34 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [PORPOSAL] Fineract Thanks for the reply ... maybe I wasn't clear enough ... I was referring to our work prior to proposal ... we wanted our community to be in consensus with this step b/c it also has an impact to us in a whole ... we are very excited to join Apache and are aware of the fact that there could not be any 'internal' side conversation bypassing the community. Sorry if my message implied that. Cheers Markus On Dec 6, 2015 12:22 PM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Markus Geiß <mge...@mifos.org> wrote: > >... > > > Joining Apache, preparing the proposal, nominating the initial > committers, > > and agreeing on mentors is a process governed by our community by having > a > > healthy discussion and finding consensus on all of these things. > > > > Please be careful with a phrase such as "governed by our community", as > that sounds somewhat isolationist and exclusive. One of the primary things > to learn about how Apache views/wants its communities to operate, is to be > as inclusive as possible. And that means trying to avoid the implied > boundary defined by "our community", especially when speaking about > governance/authority. > > ... > > I believe the goal here is reduction of authority. We *do* want our TLPs to > be self-governing, but to do so through consensus rather than an > application of rules and power structure. When I was Chairman of the ASF, I > learned a very important lesson: I did not want to impose, or to use my > position of authority, but *others* viewed me in that position regardless. > I didn't like it, but couldn't avoid it. My personal words were sometimes > viewed as the Chairman's words. Along similar lines, incoming podlings > may/will view Mentors' words in light of an authority we don't wish/want > them to have. The podling needs a few people to provide a +1 when required > (Mentors), and it needs many people to teach it about typical Apache > culture (Community volunteers). I'm not entirely sold on this specific > approach, but I definitely see some sense in minimizing the potential for > mistaken authority, especially for those new-to/learning how we work here > at Apache. Us "old hands" get it, but that doesn't apply to noobs. > > Cheers, > -g >
