Inline below. > On May 30, 2026, at 2:19 PM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting ideas, Dave. > > Could you explain the reasoning behind those proposals? Why do you think > it's needed?
(2) and (3) are the ones I think are most important. > > J. > > > On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 9:28 PM Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Justin, >> >> Observations: >> >> (1) Consider moving the Mentor sign-off to the beginning of the report. It would make clear at the beginning of the report that the Mentors have signed off. >> (2) Add a section for PPMC members to sign-off. Since the report is now generated it should be clear that the podling is paying attention and we should surface which PPMC members are responsible. This could help the IPMC vet graduation discussions on whether or not the proposed PMC chair is up to the one main duty and not just a figurehead from a vendor. >> (3) Require a community written summary at the top. For podling's that >> have been in the Incubator for more than 18 months add a section for >> describing their exit strategy (graduation, retirement, something else) Some Board Members over the last several years have been frustrated with the reporter and how it will generate a report that can be filed with little thought. Changing to this AI generated report brings the Incubator more towards this “unthinking” approach. The report needs to include some human thoughts about the podling's progress. This should be upfront and free-form perhaps with an issues for the IPMC question as well. For example, I joined Pony Mail as Mentor a year or two ago because it is a special case of mostly ASF Members who don’t currently make releases. The membership of the community includes both ASF staff and via a vendor relationship with Infra including some principals from the lists.apache.org vendor. This project does not belong in the Incubator, the Incubator is not helping this entirely unique situation. But it may or may not be a good TLP group. Other times there are Podling’s that naturally have slow growing communities and one of their impediments to growth is remaining in the Incubator. These are situations that should be highlighted in the IPMC report. This proposed section communicates to the IPMC in a way that breaks down the mechanical nature of Incubation. >> (4) If there is no sign-off from Mentors and PPMC then consider if the >> report should be included or not. If no one involved in the podling has signed off then I don’t think the IPMC report should include them. I believe this is already the case, but the IPMC could decide to show these with a heading. Best, Dave >> >> Best, >> Dave >> >>> On May 30, 2026, at 12:38 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 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
