Hi Andrew and Justin, I find this experiment incredibly useful! While human verification is key to catching any potential hallucinations, this structure offers a good foundation for reviewers to validate project claims.
To make this even better, I suggest adding a "Human-In-The-Loop" section with direct links to the data sources. Regarding the "development activity" point, the data actually shows a nice doubling in commit frequency when comparing the last three months to the yearly total. Clickable links would clarify this; Andrew, perhaps this was the source of your confusion, which the right "source links" could resolve? Regarding the environmental and financial side - very valid cocerns indeed - I also was very sceptical even half a year ago, but the situation - even during those 6 months - changed dramatically for the better. And the mcp tool calls are quite useful for illustrating this: - Cost: Roughly $0.30–$1.00 in API spend. - Water: About 0.1–0.2 liters for cooling. This usage is comparable to a cup of coffee and is likely very efficient compared to the "energy/water" used when writing from scratch and spending more time on it by human. The verbosity Andrew mentioned can also be easily adjusted via settings to match everyone’s preference for conciseness; this is another possible area for improvement. In projects like Magpie, we are also exploring local LLMs to further reduce costs and stay vendor-neutral. Also there are initiatives/startups (even run by my friends - ASF members) to get ASICs on the market that are supposed to drive the cost / energy of LLM operations several orders of magnitude down. So, unlike the cost and energy of a cup of coffee, this is likely only trending heavily downwards (there are reports showing 30x cost/energy drop over last 2 years on average per token - and it shows no sign of slowing down). Best, Jarek On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 11:26 AM Andrew Wetmore <[email protected]> wrote: > The statement "Development activity has increased over the reporting > window" does not match the data provided. > > This is an interesting exercise, but is the result not more verbose > (drowning the reader in details) than required for a podling report? How > many credits, how much fresh water, were spent in its creation? > > A > > Andrew Wetmore > Assistant VP, Marketing and Publicity, The ASF <https://apache.org> > Editor-Writer, Infra team, The ASF > > Editor, moosehousepress.com > > On Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:39 AM Justin Mclean <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The recent MCP discussed obtaining most of the data needed to create a > > draft report for a project. > > > > What would people think about populating the incubator report with a > draft > > report along these lines? > > > > Here’s one I generated for Hamilton (I’ve not edited this in any way). I > > know the Hamilton report will be different from this, but as you can see, > > it can generate useful information in a few minutes. > > Apache Hamilton (Incubating) -- May 2026 Report > > > > Hamilton is a lightweight in-process framework to define, execute, and > > observe directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that express data transformations. > > In Hamilton, one can express complex DAGs of transformations, e.g. from > > dataframe transformations (using pandas, polars, PySpark), machine > learning > > pipelines, through to regular software engineering API request and LLM > API > > based workflows. Observability hooks are built into the framework. The > > Hamilton UI is a self-hostable service to capture observability output > from > > workflow runs. > > > > Hamilton has been incubating since 12 April 2025. > > > > Three most important unfinished issues to address before graduating: > > > > Release cadence for the core package. The last ASF-approved source > release > > on dist.apache.org is 1.89.0-incubating (October 2025). Vote threads are > > currently open for sdk, ui, lsp, and contrib components, but a new ASF > > release of the core hamilton package is overdue. The project should > > complete at least one further approved release before graduation. > > > > PyPI package naming and provenance. The sf-hamilton package on PyPI > > (version 1.90.0) does not carry the ALv2 license field or an Incubator > > disclaimer in its project description. It is also unclear whether all > > versions published to sf-hamilton and apache-hamilton were produced > solely > > from IPMC-approved ASF releases; this should be confirmed and documented > > before graduation. > > > > Mentor engagement. The average mentor sign-off rate over the past 12 > > months is 1.6 per report, which is below the level expected for > consistent > > oversight. Mentors should confirm they are actively reviewing each report > > before graduation discussions proceed. > > > > Are there any issues that the IPMC or ASF Board need to be aware of? > > > > No. > > > > How has the community developed since the last report? > > > > Development activity has increased over the reporting window. Over the > > past three months the project recorded 128 commits from 16 unique > > committers, compared with 257 commits from 27 committers over the full > > 12-month window -- indicating that activity is concentrated in a smaller > > group recently but has not dropped off. The bus factor (50th percentile) > > has held at 2 across all windows, meaning the project remains dependent > on > > a small core of contributors; the 75th percentile is 3-4, which is an > > improvement over the year. > > > > New contributor attraction remains healthy: 12 new contributors appeared > > in the last three months, consistent with the 12-month trend of 21. > Mailing > > list participation on dev@ has been moderate: around 40 messages from 9 > > unique posters in the past three months. That is lower than the 12-month > > figure of 151 messages from 13 posters, suggesting the pace of general > > discussion has softened outside of release activity. > > > > A proposal for an Airflow Provider for Hamilton was posted to dev@ in > > April 2026 and attracted community discussion, which is a positive sign > of > > broadening ecosystem interest. > > > > How has the project developed since the last report? > > > > The project is actively preparing multiple component releases. As of the > > reporting date, vote threads are open on dev@ for four sub-packages: > > apache-hamilton-sdk 0.9.0, apache-hamilton-ui 0.0.18, apache-hamilton-lsp > > 0.2.0, and apache-hamilton-contrib 0.0.9 (all RC0, incubating). These > votes > > were opened on 26 May 2026. > > > > The most recent completed ASF source release is 1.89.0-incubating, dated > > 11 October 2025, and is available at archive.apache.org with signature > > and SHA-512 checksum present. A GitHub release tagged > > apache-hamilton-v1.90.0-incubating-RC0 was published on 25 April 2026 but > > is flagged as a release candidate and has not yet completed the formal > vote > > process. > > > > The apache-hamilton package on PyPI is at version 1.90.0 and includes an > > Incubator disclaimer in its description. The older sf-hamilton package > > redirects installers to apache-hamilton but its PyPI metadata does not > > include the ALv2 license field or an Incubator disclaimer. > > > > How would you assess the podling's maturity? > > > > [ ] Initial setup > > [ ] Working towards first release > > [ ] Community building > > [x] Nearing graduation > > [ ] Other > > Date of last release: > > > > 11 October 2025 (apache-hamilton-1.89.0-incubating). Multiple component > > release votes (sdk, ui, lsp, contrib) are currently in progress as of 26 > > May 2026. > > > > When were the last committers or PPMC members elected? > > > > [PODLING TO COMPLETE] > > > > Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? > > > > Mentors are listed as Kevin Ratnasekera, Ayush Saxena, PJ Fanning, and > > Jarek Potiuk. Mentor participation is visible on dev@ -- PJ Fanning and > > Jarek Potiuk have engaged in recent release vote threads. The average > > mentor sign-off rate over reported periods is 1.6, which is below the > > expected level; the PPMC should confirm that all four mentors are > reviewing > > reports regularly. > > > > Is the PPMC managing the podling's brand / trademarks? > > > > [PODLING TO COMPLETE] > > > > > > > > This was the prompt to create it: > > > > System prompt: Use only data retrieved from the Incubator MCP, MailMCP, > > ReleaseMCP, Health MCP, and Policy MCP to populate the report. Do not use > > any previous report content or training data. Follow these rules: > > > > The reporting window runs from the first day of the month of the last > > report to today. Determine this from the podling's reporting schedule > > retrieved in step 0. > > Do not include raw statistics as standalone facts. Instead interpret them > > as trends by comparing across available time windows (3m, 6m, 12m). Note > > whether activity is growing, stable, or declining in plain language. > > Only include a statistic directly if it is meaningful on its own, such as > > the number of releases, a specific release version, or a release vote in > > progress. > > Surface health concerns in the issues section -- such as declining > > reviewer diversity, concentration of commit activity, or dropping mailing > > list engagement -- rather than leaving it blank. > > The "Are there any issues that the IPMC or ASF Board need to be aware > of?" > > section is for issues that require board-level attention -- such as legal > > concerns, governance breakdowns, or matters the IPMC cannot resolve > alone. > > Routine release activity, compliance housekeeping, and community health > > watch items belong in other sections. If there are no board-level issues, > > write "No." > > Only call the Policy MCP if ReleaseMCP or Health MCP identifies a > > potential compliance concern. If called, reference the relevant policy in > > the issues section. > > For any section the tools cannot populate, write [PODLING TO COMPLETE] on > > its own line. > > Do not copy forward language from any previous report. > > Write in plain, concise English suitable for an international audience. > > Avoid jargon. > > Output the completed report as a markdown document. User prompt: Draft > the > > Incubator board report for Apache {podling} (Incubating) using the > > following steps: > > Call the Incubator MCP to retrieve the podling's description, incubation > > start date, and reporting schedule to determine the current reporting > > window start date. > > Call MailMCP to retrieve dev list activity since the start of the > > reporting window, looking for release votes, discussion threads, and > > significant proposals. > > Call ReleaseMCP to retrieve current release artifact evidence including > > dist, archive, PyPI, and GitHub. > > Call the Health MCP to retrieve community health metrics across all > > available time windows. > > If ReleaseMCP or Health MCP identifies a potential compliance concern, > > call the Policy MCP to confirm the relevant policy and reference it in > the > > issues section. > > Synthesise the results into the standard Incubator report template below > > and output as markdown. Template: markdown > > ## Apache {podling} (Incubating) -- {report month and year} Report > > > > {description from Incubator MCP} > > > > {podling} has been incubating since {start date from Incubator MCP}. > > > > ### Three most important unfinished issues to address before graduating: > > > > ### Are there any issues that the IPMC or ASF Board need to be aware of? > > > > ### How has the community developed since the last report? > > > > ### How has the project developed since the last report? > > > > ### How would you assess the podling's maturity? > > - [ ] Initial setup > > - [ ] Working towards first release > > - [ ] Community building > > - [ ] Nearing graduation > > - [ ] Other > > > > ### Date of last release: > > > > ### When were the last committers or PPMC members elected? > > > > ### Have your mentors been helpful and responsive? > > > > ### Is the PPMC managing the podling's brand / trademarks? > > > > And this is the list of MCP calls it made: > > Here are all MCP tool calls made, in order: > > > > podlings:reporting_schedule (name="Hamilton") -- retrieved Hamilton's > > reporting group, cadence, and current report period to establish the > > reporting window. > > ipmc:podling_brief (podling="Hamilton", brief_format="detailed") -- > > retrieved incubation start date, mentor list, health summary, and key > > indicators including commit counts, committer diversity, and active > > concerns. > > ipmc:release_artifact_evidence (podling="Hamilton", > > github_project="hamilton", include_platforms=true, > > pypi_packages=["sf-hamilton", "apache-hamilton"]) -- retrieved > dist/archive > > artifact evidence, GitHub releases, PyPI package metadata, Docker Hub > > checks, and Maven checks. > > apache-health:compare_windows (podling="Hamilton", windows=["3m", "6m", > > "12m"]) -- retrieved community health metrics across all three windows > for > > trend comparison (commits, committers, authors, dev posters, PRs, > releases, > > mentor sign-offs, bus factor, reviewer diversity). > > incubator-mail:recent_podling_mail (podling="hamilton", list_name="dev", > > timespan="lte=3M", limit=20) -- retrieved recent dev@ activity including > > the four active release vote threads (sdk, ui, lsp, contrib) and the > > Airflow Provider proposal discussion. > > podlings:get_podling (name="Hamilton") -- retrieved the full podling > > description, champion, mentor names, and start date for inclusion in the > > report header. > > Kind Regards, > > Justin >
