Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
On 2/1/12 1:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: Dear Proposed Syncope mentors: Please post messages on this thread indicating your prior experience as mentors, Does mentors have to have any experience ? Is this a new policy for being a mentor on an incubator project, or something you just are interested in ? if any, and your willing to remain in place as active mentors for at least a year. Mentors are supposed to remain mentors up to graduation. It's certainly not necessary to require that a proposed mentor express a will to remain mentor for more than a year... I'm missing something here ? -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
Hi Benson, I am an ASF Member since 2011 and, despite the TLPs in which I am involved, I've been taking part in a good number of incubating projects at ASF, such as BVal, Amber, Any23 (official Mentor), DirectMemory and OGNL (graduated in commons). I feel quiet confident that I can cover the mentor role in Syncope. best, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Proposed Syncope mentors: Please post messages on this thread indicating your prior experience as mentors, if any, and your willing to remain in place as active mentors for at least a year. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi Simo! Sounds like a really nice project. But I wonder if there is some overlap with the Apache Shiro project [1]? They're not the same as some have pointed out yet even if they were there's nothing wrong with having overlapping projects or ones that even duplicate each other functionally. Alex - 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
On 1 February 2012 09:06, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/1/12 1:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: Dear Proposed Syncope mentors: Please post messages on this thread indicating your prior experience as mentors, Does mentors have to have any experience ? Is this a new policy for being a mentor on an incubator project, or something you just are interested in ? Personally I find the request for mentors to justify themselves in this way quite disturbing. I do understand what Benson is trying to address here, I just don't think this is the right way. We have not, to my knowledge, agreed any changes to the mentor role. All people currently able to mentor have been pre-approved by the IPMC. Frankly I find it distasteful expecting volunteers with good intentions to further justify themselves. That is not to say that things are OK as they are, but lets not take rash actions, lets figure it out and take one step at a time. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
On 2/1/12 10:39 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 1 February 2012 09:06, Emmanuel Lecharnyelecha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/1/12 1:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: Dear Proposed Syncope mentors: Please post messages on this thread indicating your prior experience as mentors, Does mentors have to have any experience ? Is this a new policy for being a mentor on an incubator project, or something you just are interested in ? Personally I find the request for mentors to justify themselves in this way quite disturbing. I do understand what Benson is trying to address here, I just don't think this is the right way. We have not, to my knowledge, agreed any changes to the mentor role. All people currently able to mentor have been pre-approved by the IPMC. Frankly I find it distasteful expecting volunteers with good intentions to further justify themselves. Same feeling here. This would raise a barrier that is most likely to discourage potential mentors. This is a meritocracy, those who already have gain access to the IPMC have already proved themselves, and have qualified as potential mentors, imho. Not to say that every ASF member will be good mentors, but the reason we require that any podling have 3 mentors is just to mitigate the risk that one of them is not fullfiling his duty. Now, if we are to discuss the way incubator should be managed, then the best is to start another thread. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of February2011 by brianleroux
Wrong year:) --tim On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org wrote: Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Incubator Wiki for change notification. The February2011 page has been changed by brianleroux: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2011?action=diffrev1=62rev2=63 Signed off by mentor: bdelacretaz (champion) + + + Cordova + + Apache Cordova is a platform for building native mobile applications using HTML, CSS and JavaScript. The project entered incubation as Apache Callback in October, 2011, before changing its name to Cordova. + + January could be characterized as the month where we hit our stride on Apache infra. Tonnes of updates to the code. Huge activity on the mailing list. Two new committers voted in. + + Currently, we recognize the majority of commits are currently coming from Adobe and IBM actively pushing to our repositories on git-wip-us (6 and 4 active pushers respectively). We aim to add more contributors in coming releases as per The Apache Way. + + * shipped 1.4 (NOTE: we aim to make 1.5 our first official apache release) + * continued code migration to Cordova name + * new Apache Cordova logo! + * project web site design iteration + * new automated build system code named 'coho' + * Yohei Shimomae voted as committer + * Steve Gill voted as committer + * made progress on the IP review + + Graduation concerns: + + * Complete the IP review (source headers, license metadata, etc.) + * Continue to foster more community committers + * Ship an official Apache release + + Signed off by mentor: + + + + Deltacloud - To unsubscribe, e-mail: cvs-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: cvs-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: On 1 February 2012 09:06, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/1/12 1:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: Dear Proposed Syncope mentors: Please post messages on this thread indicating your prior experience as mentors, Does mentors have to have any experience ? Is this a new policy for being a mentor on an incubator project, or something you just are interested in ? Personally I find the request for mentors to justify themselves in this way quite disturbing. I do understand what Benson is trying to address here, I just don't think this is the right way. We have not, to my knowledge, agreed any changes to the mentor role. All people currently able to mentor have been pre-approved by the IPMC. Frankly I find it distasteful expecting volunteers with good intentions to further justify themselves. +1 Indeed and very well put. That is not to say that things are OK as they are, but lets not take rash actions, lets figure it out and take one step at a time. Also well put. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
[VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)
Hello, While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1 in the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE and license files. Also the source distribution contained the sources of modules that are not part of the release profile. The new release candidate fixes these issues, for that it provides a new module containing the assembly descriptor that replicates the directory structure excluding modules not in the release profile. This is now the fifth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the modules in the release profile. A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb launcher are available with their signatures at: http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201202/ In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating. Cheers, Reto
Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
A discussion on the private list (about some individuals, hence private) has turned to a useful generic topic. It has been suggested that that part come here, so here it is (with permission from authors, the only edit is to remove the original subject which had a personal name in it) -- Forwarded message -- From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com Date: 1 February 2012 11:44 Subject: mentoring individuals as well as projects To: priv...@incubator.apache.org On 1 February 2012 11:05, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: ... I think as Mentors we probably do a so so job of mentoring Podlings (not bad, but not good as well). But we do a subpar job on mentoring individuals. +1000 Here's a little anecdote. About 10 years ago David Crossley mentored me. I'm not sure if he made a decision to do so or if it just happened because that is his style. However, he mentored me in my first committership, my first leadership activities in my first project and my initial Membership. There were many other people along the way but it was David who gently pushed me forwards at a faster rate than I was willing to push myself. My point is that when we help guide individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute those individuals often grow in capacity. Sure, it doesn't always work out, people move on or we get it wrong. But the balance is, in my experience, positive. I'd like to think David takes great pride in knowing that a little mentoring all those years ago has resulted in me still being here today and (hopefully) useful to the foundation and a number of its projects. I do see this happening across a great many projects today. We should do more of it and we should facilitate those who want to do it. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
I apologize if my choice of words here engendered a belief that I was trying to hold mentors to a new standard. The IPMC has been discussing the problem of mentors who don't do their job. I'm trying to approach this problem from the front end, instead of waiting for it to be a problem later on. I have no problem with someone starting out as a mentor. *I* started out as a mentor not too long ago. But as an IPMC member, I'd like to know the experience profiles of mentors. I'm also trying, more pointedly, to head off the 'AWOL mentor' problem by asking mentors to think about, and state, the commitment they are making. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
principles of Apache communities
Here are some of the things that guide me in my decision- making about governance and Apache communities. Please feel to add you own thoughts on the subject! 1) Fairness and Equitable Treatment- that it is wrong to apply different standards to different people based solely on their (external) accrued status. 2) Tolerance- that we respect the diversity of opinion without the need for tit-for-tat arguments about who is right. 3) Fun- that the nature of participation here is personally satisfying and not onerous. 4) Consistency- that we don't apply different standards to different people based on whatever hot topic is currently being debated. 5) Competence- that we entrust people who are most familiar with the work being performed to exercise their oversight and judgement about the codebase. 6) Empowerment- that people who show sustained levels of competence and oversight capabilities are rewarded with higher levels of organizational responsibility. [more later] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Mentor attrition
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 08:56:01AM -0500, Benson Margulies wrote: I'm also trying, more pointedly, to head off the 'AWOL mentor' problem by asking mentors to think about, and state, the commitment they are making. A lot of harsh words have been directed towards AWOL Mentors lately. The more I've thought about it, though, the harder it gets to muster indignation towards these well-meaning volunteers. The root cause of Mentor attrition lies in the fundamental assymetry between the investment of a podling's core contributors and the investment of its Mentors. People come and go in open source, and because Mentors have proportionally lower personal investment in their podlings, it is predictable that they will drop away at a greater rate. Heck, we probably have enough data at this point to build a nice model and calculate how many fractions of a Mentor a podling can expect to lose month-by-month. Advising Mentor candidates up front that they are making a long term commitment doesn't change the investment assymetry. I'm skeptical that it will accomplish much beyond scaring off some people who could otherwise have done some good. Even Mentors who go AWOL will often have made valuable contributions before they drift away. Since the bulk of Mentoring work happens at the start of Incubation, is it so bad to have a lot of help around when a podling needs it most? For what it's worth, in my assessment, the problem is not that podlings shed a few Mentors along their journey -- it's that unlike Apache PMCs, podling oversight structures are fragile and do not easily withstand personnel churn or self-replenish. It seems that we only look for new Mentors at times of crisis, when the official count drops below three. I humbly suggest that we might seek to expand podling IPMC representation during times of plenty, and that instead of looking to our beloved usual suspects, we look to standout podling contributors who have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Apache Way. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:54:18PM +, Ross Gardler wrote: My point is that when we help guide individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute those individuals often grow in capacity. There was a memorable post on another ASF list a few months ago which compared Apache's decentralized leadership model to that of military organizations and contrasted it with the stiff hierarchical model common in the corporate world. It linked to an article which studied the question of why military service -- particularly service in the crucible of combat -- is exceptionally effective at developing leaders.[1] The article author's answer, in part: Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Top level PMCs at Apache are largely autonomous, but when it comes to binding votes on releases, podlings are wholly dependent on IPMC members whose attentions often wander. Our future PMC members do not hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organization -- instead, projects have a boolean graduated/not-graduated property whereby podlings move from having no autonomy and mandatory supervision to having near-total autonomy and scant supervision after graduation. I believe that we would develop better future PMC members if PPMC members were encouraged to earn partial autonomy for their podlings by earning a binding vote for themselves. Serving alongside Mentors encourages podling contributors to think like Mentors, exercising servant leadership and devolving responsibility within their own projects. Presently, we do not often take advantage of this opportunity to expand the capacity of these individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute within the crucible of incubation -- to our podlings' detriment and our own. Marvin Humphrey [1] http://blogs.hbr.org/frontline-leadership/2009/02/why-the-military-produces-grea.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
Hi, I would like to point out that a reminder on the day the report is due is NOT plenty of time. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 15 February 2012, 10:00:00 PST. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Feb 1st). Fortunately for Flex, Bertrand was completely on top of this and the podling is very active and had their act together in hours! I understand that the policy was changed to allow the IPMC more time to review podling reports. But now the previous notice timing leaves the time short for podlings to produce reports. I realize that this may be due to when the board chooses to announce the meeting. I think that podlings ought to be reminded three weeks before the board meeting. Perhaps it is merely a bug in the automated system. Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Marvin no-re...@apache.org Date: February 1, 2012 4:37:57 AM PST To: flex-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc]) Reply-To: flex-...@incubator.apache.org Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 15 February 2012, 10:00:00 PST. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Feb 1st). Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
Not much I can do about this given the way the script works. I'd like to point out tho that the 2 weeks preceding isn't currently being rigidly enforced at this point, and certainly some leeway will be granted given the way the calendar works out for February. - Original Message - From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 11:30 AM Subject: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] Hi, I would like to point out that a reminder on the day the report is due is NOT plenty of time. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 15 February 2012, 10:00:00 PST. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Feb 1st). Fortunately for Flex, Bertrand was completely on top of this and the podling is very active and had their act together in hours! I understand that the policy was changed to allow the IPMC more time to review podling reports. But now the previous notice timing leaves the time short for podlings to produce reports. I realize that this may be due to when the board chooses to announce the meeting. I think that podlings ought to be reminded three weeks before the board meeting. Perhaps it is merely a bug in the automated system. Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Marvin no-re...@apache.org Date: February 1, 2012 4:37:57 AM PST To: flex-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc]) Reply-To: flex-...@incubator.apache.org Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 15 February 2012, 10:00:00 PST. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Feb 1st). Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC - 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
RE: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
+1 From: Marvin Humphrey Sent: 2/1/2012 8:06 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:54:18PM +, Ross Gardler wrote: My point is that when we help guide individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute those individuals often grow in capacity. There was a memorable post on another ASF list a few months ago which compared Apache's decentralized leadership model to that of military organizations and contrasted it with the stiff hierarchical model common in the corporate world. It linked to an article which studied the question of why military service -- particularly service in the crucible of combat -- is exceptionally effective at developing leaders.[1] The article author's answer, in part: Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Top level PMCs at Apache are largely autonomous, but when it comes to binding votes on releases, podlings are wholly dependent on IPMC members whose attentions often wander. Our future PMC members do not hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organization -- instead, projects have a boolean graduated/not-graduated property whereby podlings move from having no autonomy and mandatory supervision to having near-total autonomy and scant supervision after graduation. I believe that we would develop better future PMC members if PPMC members were encouraged to earn partial autonomy for their podlings by earning a binding vote for themselves. Serving alongside Mentors encourages podling contributors to think like Mentors, exercising servant leadership and devolving responsibility within their own projects. Presently, we do not often take advantage of this opportunity to expand the capacity of these individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute within the crucible of incubation -- to our podlings' detriment and our own. Marvin Humphrey [1] http://blogs.hbr.org/frontline-leadership/2009/02/why-the-military-produces-grea.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
On 1 February 2012 15:54, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:54:18PM +, Ross Gardler wrote: My point is that when we help guide individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute those individuals often grow in capacity. There was a memorable post on another ASF list a few months ago which compared Apache's decentralized leadership model to that of military organizations and contrasted it with the stiff hierarchical model common in the corporate world. It linked to an article which studied the question of why military service -- particularly service in the crucible of combat -- is exceptionally effective at developing leaders.[1] The article author's answer, in part: Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Top level PMCs at Apache are largely autonomous, but when it comes to binding votes on releases, podlings are wholly dependent on IPMC members whose attentions often wander. AIUI, a Mentor must be an IPMC member, and a podling should have at least 3 mentors, so a podling is not *wholly dependent* on the IPMC. Far from it. It's only when a podlings own mentors are lacking or AWOL that it is necessary to solicit votes from the IPMC at large. Our future PMC members do not hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organization -- instead, projects have a boolean graduated/not-graduated property whereby podlings move from having no autonomy and mandatory supervision to having near-total autonomy and scant supervision after graduation. I believe that we would develop better future PMC members if PPMC members were encouraged to earn partial autonomy for their podlings by earning a binding vote for themselves. Serving alongside Mentors encourages podling contributors to think like Mentors, exercising servant leadership and devolving responsibility within their own projects. Not sure how that would work if the podlings mentors are already awol. Presently, we do not often take advantage of this opportunity to expand the capacity of these individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute within the crucible of incubation -- to our podlings' detriment and our own. Marvin Humphrey [1] http://blogs.hbr.org/frontline-leadership/2009/02/why-the-military-produces-grea.html - 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
Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of February2011 by brianleroux
Everybody gets 'one of those' in a new year, amirite? ;) On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong year:) --tim On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org wrote: Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Incubator Wiki for change notification. The February2011 page has been changed by brianleroux: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2011?action=diffrev1=62rev2=63 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
- Original Message - From: sebb seb...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects On 1 February 2012 15:54, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:54:18PM +, Ross Gardler wrote: My point is that when we help guide individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute those individuals often grow in capacity. There was a memorable post on another ASF list a few months ago which compared Apache's decentralized leadership model to that of military organizations and contrasted it with the stiff hierarchical model common in the corporate world. It linked to an article which studied the question of why military service -- particularly service in the crucible of combat -- is exceptionally effective at developing leaders.[1] The article author's answer, in part: Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Top level PMCs at Apache are largely autonomous, but when it comes to binding votes on releases, podlings are wholly dependent on IPMC members whose attentions often wander. AIUI, a Mentor must be an IPMC member, and a podling should have at least 3 mentors, so a podling is not *wholly dependent* on the IPMC. Far from it. It's only when a podlings own mentors are lacking or AWOL that it is necessary to solicit votes from the IPMC at large. Leaving the reality of the claim that 3 mentors are actually active on any given podling, the fact is nobody expects those mentors to actually review commit activity. Unfortunately that is exactly what the org expects of any real effort at providing oversight. We are at absolutely no risk of being sued for damages for any of the minor licensing nitpicks general@incubator happens to notice on a given release, whereas we are going to assume full liability for errant commits that plagiarize the independent work of others without fully respecting the copyright license on that code. I believe this is what Marvin is alluding to when he points out that compentent IPMC oversight is little more than an illusive myth on most of our podlings. We rely on the committers to police themselves and we trust that they do, but we do not, as a group, empower such people to perform that work on behalf of the IPMC. Which is not the lesson I learned from httpd about how subproject oversight is typically handled in a peer-based society. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: mentoring individuals as well as projects
Can we avoid this topic forking into another mentor going AWOL thread. We've done that to death already. The topic of this thread is different: I think as Mentors we probably do a so so job of mentoring Podlings (not bad, but not good as well). But we do a subpar job on mentoring individuals. Ross On 1 February 2012 13:54, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: A discussion on the private list (about some individuals, hence private) has turned to a useful generic topic. It has been suggested that that part come here, so here it is (with permission from authors, the only edit is to remove the original subject which had a personal name in it) -- Forwarded message -- From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com Date: 1 February 2012 11:44 Subject: mentoring individuals as well as projects To: priv...@incubator.apache.org On 1 February 2012 11:05, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: ... I think as Mentors we probably do a so so job of mentoring Podlings (not bad, but not good as well). But we do a subpar job on mentoring individuals. +1000 Here's a little anecdote. About 10 years ago David Crossley mentored me. I'm not sure if he made a decision to do so or if it just happened because that is his style. However, he mentored me in my first committership, my first leadership activities in my first project and my initial Membership. There were many other people along the way but it was David who gently pushed me forwards at a faster rate than I was willing to push myself. My point is that when we help guide individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute those individuals often grow in capacity. Sure, it doesn't always work out, people move on or we get it wrong. But the balance is, in my experience, positive. I'd like to think David takes great pride in knowing that a little mentoring all those years ago has resulted in me still being here today and (hopefully) useful to the foundation and a number of its projects. I do see this happening across a great many projects today. We should do more of it and we should facilitate those who want to do it. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentor attrition
There has been a lot of heated email sent on the incubator lists in the last few months. It was my mistake not to realize that my email asking about mentor commitment and experience would be read in the light of that context. I don't claim to know why the mentor-less podlings lost their mentors, and it's not my intention to cast aspersions on any relevant individuals. However, I do think that the IPMC should think a moment about the mentors before approving any given proposal. I repeat: 'think a moment.' At very least, I think that I am entitled to wonder whether the proposed mentors of a proposed podling are likely to require some additional support and assistance to succeed. I might make it my business to provide it. Yes, there are good reasons why a person might depart from the role of mentor. My view is that this is about balance. Mentors, in my opinion, should be signed up to putting in the necessary effort for a reasonable period of time. Of course, stuff happens, but if a proposal comes with three mentors, none of whom feel confident that they'll be around in two months, I think that it calls for some thinking. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:56, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ... I have no problem with someone starting out as a mentor. *I* started out as a mentor not too long ago. But as an IPMC member, I'd like to know the experience profiles of mentors. I think there are better ways to learn about people's contributions than asking them to provide a resume/justification for their desire to be a Mentor. I'm also trying, more pointedly, to head off the 'AWOL mentor' problem by asking mentors to think about, and state, the commitment they are making. But your approach is pre-judging them. I think it is better to be optimistic -- that people *will* continue as proper Mentors. Trust, but verify. *IF* somebody goes AWOL, then deal with it at that time, rather than simply assuming that up front. Find a way to detect an AWOL mentor rather than requesting these uncomfortable justifications. Thanks, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:30, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi, I would like to point out that a reminder on the day the report is due is NOT plenty of time. While the *reminder* may not have given you much time, note that podlings should already know their requirements and due dates. Having a reminder does not provide an excuse to ignore these details :-) ... I realize that this may be due to when the board chooses to announce the meeting. I think that podlings ought to be reminded three weeks before the board meeting. There is no announcement. The calendar is set well in advance: repos/committers/board/calendar.txt Generally: third Wednesday of every month. (of course, the Board may tweak meeting dates, but that is the exception) Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
On 2/1/2012 12:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:56, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm also trying, more pointedly, to head off the 'AWOL mentor' problem by asking mentors to think about, and state, the commitment they are making. But your approach is pre-judging them. I think it is better to be optimistic -- that people *will* continue as proper Mentors. Trust, but verify. *IF* somebody goes AWOL, then deal with it at that time, rather than simply assuming that up front. +1 Find a way to detect an AWOL mentor rather than requesting these uncomfortable justifications. ++1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: mentoring individuals as well as projects
+1, Marvin, I couldn't agree more. Cheers, Chris On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:54 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:54:18PM +, Ross Gardler wrote: My point is that when we help guide individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute those individuals often grow in capacity. There was a memorable post on another ASF list a few months ago which compared Apache's decentralized leadership model to that of military organizations and contrasted it with the stiff hierarchical model common in the corporate world. It linked to an article which studied the question of why military service -- particularly service in the crucible of combat -- is exceptionally effective at developing leaders.[1] The article author's answer, in part: Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Top level PMCs at Apache are largely autonomous, but when it comes to binding votes on releases, podlings are wholly dependent on IPMC members whose attentions often wander. Our future PMC members do not hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organization -- instead, projects have a boolean graduated/not-graduated property whereby podlings move from having no autonomy and mandatory supervision to having near-total autonomy and scant supervision after graduation. I believe that we would develop better future PMC members if PPMC members were encouraged to earn partial autonomy for their podlings by earning a binding vote for themselves. Serving alongside Mentors encourages podling contributors to think like Mentors, exercising servant leadership and devolving responsibility within their own projects. Presently, we do not often take advantage of this opportunity to expand the capacity of these individuals who demonstrate a willingness to contribute within the crucible of incubation -- to our podlings' detriment and our own. Marvin Humphrey [1] http://blogs.hbr.org/frontline-leadership/2009/02/why-the-military-produces-grea.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:30, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi, I would like to point out that a reminder on the day the report is due is NOT plenty of time. While the *reminder* may not have given you much time, note that podlings should already know their requirements and due dates. Having a reminder does not provide an excuse to ignore these details :-) Not saying it is an excuse. Just saying that the message could be friendlier given the emphasis on quality podling status reports that the IPMC must review. ... I realize that this may be due to when the board chooses to announce the meeting. I think that podlings ought to be reminded three weeks before the board meeting. There is no announcement. The calendar is set well in advance: repos/committers/board/calendar.txt OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. Thanks, Dave Generally: third Wednesday of every month. (of course, the Board may tweak meeting dates, but that is the exception) Cheers, -g - 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
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 14:40, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: ... There is no announcement. The calendar is set well in advance: repos/committers/board/calendar.txt OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) Nah. I hate that phrase. It is patronizing and dismissive. But improvements are always a Good Thing. If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/tools/incubator_reminder/ I suspect that you'll need to ask infra@ for access to that repository. It has restricted access for security reasons. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:32:23AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote: I believe this is what Marvin is alluding to when he points out that compentent IPMC oversight is little more than an illusive myth on most of our podlings. A PPMC member, by virtue of their deep familiarity with the code base and close monitoring of ongoing development, is, once they have internalized ASF values and studied relevant legal issues, in a *better* position to review a release and protect their project's integrity than any Mentor. We rely on the committers to police themselves and we trust that they do, but we do not, as a group, empower such people to perform that work on behalf of the IPMC. Giving suitably diligent podling contributors real oversight responsibility and accountability while they are still in the Incubator, allowing them to serve alongside experienced Mentors, watch them, ask them questions and participate in their struggle... that's what, in my opinion, will prepare them to become superior stewards of their projects after graduation. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 14:40, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: ... There is no announcement. The calendar is set well in advance: repos/committers/board/calendar.txt OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) Nah. I hate that phrase. It is patronizing and dismissive. But improvements are always a Good Thing. I should have said some might say. If I am going to complain then as an IPMC member I ought to be willing to try to fix the issue. If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/tools/incubator_reminder/ I'll wait and see I would certainly operate on this using RTC. I suspect that you'll need to ask infra@ for access to that repository. It has restricted access for security reasons. Certainly. I'll see what the next days bring and then ping infra. Regards, Dave Cheers, -g - 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
Re: Mentor attrition
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:40:36PM -0500, Benson Margulies wrote: Yes, there are good reasons why a person might depart from the role of mentor. My view is that this is about balance. Mentors, in my opinion, should be signed up to putting in the necessary effort for a reasonable period of time. Of course, stuff happens, but if a proposal comes with three mentors, none of whom feel confident that they'll be around in two months, I think that it calls for some thinking. +1, and thank you for thinking about this. It's bad if *all* of a podling's original Mentors drop away. I think we can do more to prepare for the possible attrition of some. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
The word 'justification' occurred nowhere in my email. Nonetheless, I already apologized for my poor choice of tone. I could see someone reading my query as calling for a 'resume', but I prefer to think of it as an 'introduction.' I will continue to ask proposed podlings to draw a picture of their mentors' experience, and I will continue to look for ways to remind proposed mentors that podlings' success will depend, in part, on their involvement and commitment. Our job in evaluating proposals is to evaluate whether the minimal necessary ingredients are there. I don't claim to know exactly what they are, but clearly mentor knowledge and commitment is in there somewhere. And I may, indeed, vote -1 some day on a podling proposal if I feel that there is a really severe gap. Which, of course, won't be a veto, since we don't do these decisions by consensus, so I wouldn't expect that to be a dramatic gesture generating a giant cloud of flying fur. I have learned from this interchange that I need to be much more careful in phrasing when exploring this area. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3) Establish whether Apache Accumulo is a suitable name
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13198164#comment-13198164 ] John Vines commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3: Got a start on a bit of this- Sourceforge- *no hits Git- *jaredwinick / Trendulo - Trending on Accumulo *svecor / Accumulo - no info *klucar / node-accumulo - node.js access to Accumulo *apache/Accumulo - Accumulo git mirror Bing- * 14,100 results * 4 pages in, nothing but articles about this Accumulo Yahoo- * 14,100 results * Accumulo Aggregator is a WordPress theme * went 4 pages deep Establish whether Apache Accumulo is a suitable name -- Key: PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3 Project: Podling Suitable Names Search Issue Type: Suitable Name Search Reporter: Alan Cabrera -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3) Establish whether Apache Accumulo is a suitable name
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13198181#comment-13198181 ] Billie Rinaldi commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3: TESS basic word mark search: no results Establish whether Apache Accumulo is a suitable name -- Key: PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-3 Project: Podling Suitable Names Search Issue Type: Suitable Name Search Reporter: Alan Cabrera -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
- Original Message - From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:32:23AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote: I believe this is what Marvin is alluding to when he points out that compentent IPMC oversight is little more than an illusive myth on most of our podlings. A PPMC member, by virtue of their deep familiarity with the code base and close monitoring of ongoing development, is, once they have internalized ASF values and studied relevant legal issues, in a *better* position to review a release and protect their project's integrity than any Mentor. We rely on the committers to police themselves and we trust that they do, but we do not, as a group, empower such people to perform that work on behalf of the IPMC. Giving suitably diligent podling contributors real oversight responsibility and accountability while they are still in the Incubator, allowing them to serve alongside experienced Mentors, watch them, ask them questions and participate in their struggle... that's what, in my opinion, will prepare them to become superior stewards of their projects after graduation. Agreed Marvin, but we have a long way to go before people will ever realize this approach will largely solve our outstanding problems regarding IPMC releases. People have to feel comfortable relaxing control of the reigns, and let go of the idea that only a very limited and special group of people are capable of performing real oversight for the foundation. It's not easy, and it's certainly not conducive to Western ways of thinking about governance and society. But it works. IMO we should proceed the same way as always, by taking small and largely reversible steps. Let's expand the experiment I started in 2010 to another handful of projects, and see what really happens. I suggest we include ManifoldCF for now. Any others willing to participate? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
Joe, can you please restate (or link to the archives) the intent and practice of your experiment Ross On 1 February 2012 22:02, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:32:23AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote: I believe this is what Marvin is alluding to when he points out that compentent IPMC oversight is little more than an illusive myth on most of our podlings. A PPMC member, by virtue of their deep familiarity with the code base and close monitoring of ongoing development, is, once they have internalized ASF values and studied relevant legal issues, in a *better* position to review a release and protect their project's integrity than any Mentor. We rely on the committers to police themselves and we trust that they do, but we do not, as a group, empower such people to perform that work on behalf of the IPMC. Giving suitably diligent podling contributors real oversight responsibility and accountability while they are still in the Incubator, allowing them to serve alongside experienced Mentors, watch them, ask them questions and participate in their struggle... that's what, in my opinion, will prepare them to become superior stewards of their projects after graduation. Agreed Marvin, but we have a long way to go before people will ever realize this approach will largely solve our outstanding problems regarding IPMC releases. People have to feel comfortable relaxing control of the reigns, and let go of the idea that only a very limited and special group of people are capable of performing real oversight for the foundation. It's not easy, and it's certainly not conducive to Western ways of thinking about governance and society. But it works. IMO we should proceed the same way as always, by taking small and largely reversible steps. Let's expand the experiment I started in 2010 to another handful of projects, and see what really happens. I suggest we include ManifoldCF for now. Any others willing to participate? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
Link: http://s.apache.org/qsY It's worthwhile to review the entire surrounding thread in August 2010 for IPMC members to avoid rehashing old arguments. - Original Message - From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:07 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects Joe, can you please restate (or link to the archives) the intent and practice of your experiment Ross On 1 February 2012 22:02, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:32:23AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote: I believe this is what Marvin is alluding to when he points out that compentent IPMC oversight is little more than an illusive myth on most of our podlings. A PPMC member, by virtue of their deep familiarity with the code base and close monitoring of ongoing development, is, once they have internalized ASF values and studied relevant legal issues, in a *better* position to review a release and protect their project's integrity than any Mentor. We rely on the committers to police themselves and we trust that they do, but we do not, as a group, empower such people to perform that work on behalf of the IPMC. Giving suitably diligent podling contributors real oversight responsibility and accountability while they are still in the Incubator, allowing them to serve alongside experienced Mentors, watch them, ask them questions and participate in their struggle... that's what, in my opinion, will prepare them to become superior stewards of their projects after graduation. Agreed Marvin, but we have a long way to go before people will ever realize this approach will largely solve our outstanding problems regarding IPMC releases. People have to feel comfortable relaxing control of the reigns, and let go of the idea that only a very limited and special group of people are capable of performing real oversight for the foundation. It's not easy, and it's certainly not conducive to Western ways of thinking about governance and society. But it works. IMO we should proceed the same way as always, by taking small and largely reversible steps. Let's expand the experiment I started in 2010 to another handful of projects, and see what really happens. I suggest we include ManifoldCF for now. Any others willing to participate? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have much to say against that. Note that it should effect all of the decision guidelines that give veto power, not just personnel decisions. Isn't that the problem right now though? Like it or not, the Incubator PMC has evolved into a mini-board, in the worse sense of the word. You guys have a monthly meeting via telecon; an agenda; a set of action items, and you still don't get everything that you want to get done, done. A very small percentage of folks within the IPMC actually maintain that type of board-like oversight over its podlings. And thus, because of that, the more I think about it, quite honestly, I don't know what the Incubator PMC is doing other than delay the inveitable eventuality that many of these projects will graduate and become TLPs and thus the board's problem; whereas many of them will not graduate, and become not Apache's problem. We have an Attic for projects that make it to TLP for that. Heck, we have SVN and could even reboot Incubator dead projects if a group of individuals came along and wanted to maintain the code. My conclusion from all the ruckus recently has been that the Incubator PMC is nothing more than an Incubator mailing list where many ASF veterans and those that care about the foundation discuss (and sometimes argue) about the foundation's policies and interpretations of law that not even lawyers are perfect at -- we're all human yet we try and get on our high horse here and act like we speak in absolutes and the will of one or a small subset is the will of the many when we all know that in the end, if it's not fun anymore, we wouldn't be here. What would be so bad about saying that the Incubator, over its existence, has served its purpose and has devolved into an umbrella project of the type that we are looking to get rid of at the Foundation. I agree with Bill on the perspective that I'm sure at some point (and it's probably already happened), we will experience Jakarta type symptoms and potentially may go down that road. Instead of couching it as scary HUGE change that several Apache vets have expressed to me that the Foundation doesn't like, how about we don't call it a change at all; and simply a success. IOW, the Incubator itself has graduated and it's time for it to be Attic'ed. In replacement, I propose the following concrete actions: 1. Move the Incubator process/policy/documentation, etc., to ComDev - I agree with gstein on this. I think it could be maintained by the ASF community folks there, and updated over time. But it's not vastly or rapidly changing really anymore. 2. Discharge the Incubator PMC and the role of Incubator VP -- pat everyone on the back, go have a beer, watch the big game together, whatever. Call it a success, not a failure. 3. Suggest at the board level that an Incubation process still exists at Apache, in the same way that it exists today. New projects write a proposal, the proposal is VOTEd on by the board at the board's next monthly meeting, and those that cannot be are QUEUED for the next meeting, or VOTEd on during out of board inbetween time on board@. Refer those wanting to Incubate at Apache to the existing Incubator documentation maintained by the ComDev community. Tell them to ask questions there, about the process, about what to do, or if ideas make sense. But *not* to VOTE on whether they are accepted or not. 4. Require every podling to have at least 3 ASF members on it, similar to the current Incubator process. 5. Operate podlings *exactly the same* as a TLP. There is a chair. There is a committee. Committee members have binding VOTEs on releases. I'm sure folks will argue this is blasphemy or that it will just add to the board's work, or that I'm ugly ... whatever. The fact of the matter is we kick spinning around in circle's trying to fix process issues that have been band-aided for years and that are now leaking like a sieve whenever we decide it's time to shine a light on them. When things are going well in the Incubator, it's not because they are well. It's because no one is asking questions and they've chosen to ignore some of the gaping holes on the poor wounded body that remains. And then when some folks go and point out the gaping holes, we get these huge song and dances that don't amount to anything other than the old mantra incremental change; don't rock the boat too much; XXX board member won't go for it; not here at Apache. Whatever. I think the board knows there is an issue with the Incubator. A lot of IPMC members do too. Some of us have spoken up; others
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ... This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at the advice of a small iPMC. In other words, a project is born when three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate by the small iPMC, are constituted as a project by the board, with one (the recently invented champion) as the chair. It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: that's what the Board's formal feedback to the IPMC just now is about. So, under this scheme, the particular mentors that make up the initial PMC of a project are the ones the Board is trusting, and if any step down, they absolutely need to be replaced. I support proposing this structure to the Board, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the answer is 'no'. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: [...snip large thought...please check archives here to see it: http://s.apache.org/S0i ] Anyways I could type more but I think I've beat this horse to death. I appeal to you and to the rest of the board members reading this thread will consider my proposal. Thanks for reading. --Chris, who I'll note *does* care about the IPMC and *does* care a ton about Apache and the folks here and our hallowed status as an awesome open source organization. Giving this thread all due consideration, with its own subject; Thanks Bill. I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very small operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions. Some amount of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee. I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is. Take VP, Project Incubation out of the role of judging incoming or graduating projects. Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience). Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors. Make a choice between including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and somewhat predictable flowchart. Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost their mentors. This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset on established projects. Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP. If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements above and think they jive with my proposal. Why? Given the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held, and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have done internal harm. Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals and cast such votes. That's OK, they are still representative of the membership. If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the proposed project. Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than served their purpose. In short, all incoming projects continue into an Incubation phase as we all understand it, subject to additional scrutiny and oversight by a collection of mentors and additional scrutiny by the board, reflected in their monthly and then quarterly report. A scorecard continues for the incubating projects of the milestones they must reach to graduate into a full fledged project. +1. And we can even continue to restrict them to an incubation.apache.org domain until they reach that milestone. Meh, I don't think that matters, honestly. If they want to be newfoo.apache.org, who cares, so long as they are following the website and trademarks guidelines for what the website should say aka *large bold words* saying Incubation :) But they are plugged in from day one into the same array of services offered by Board/Legal/Infrastructure/Press/Trademarks/ComDev/ConCom with mentors to help them navigate. Beyond VP, Project Incubation, we will probably uncover other obvious services that the ASF should provide as a VP or committee of peers to nurture incoming podlings into successful, healthy projects. Yep, agreed with the above, minus the VP Incubation (or Incubator VP role), and associated committee. There's no need for it. Every previous restriction on incubating podlings has been eliminated over the past 8 years. There is no reason to continue the incubator committee as an ombudsman, when every issue that applies to each incubating podling simultaneously applies to each established project. Yep, and there's no reason to continue the Incubator committee, period. Thanks for the comments BIll. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Benson, On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ... This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at the advice of a small iPMC. Yea Bill's amendments keeping the VP Incubator and the small IPMC do, but I'd say, those aren't necessary, we don't need them. Looks like Bill and I pretty much agree on everything else, and reading ahead below, so do you for the most part? In other words, a project is born when three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate by the small iPMC, s/small IPMC/membership of the foundation/ are constituted as a project by the board, with one (the recently invented champion) as the chair. +1 It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: It certainly makes your proposal about mentor qualifications important, yes. But I wouldn't say that the 2nd part naturally follows. Why wouldn't the board want to supervise podlings? IOW, what's the difference between ~100 Apache projects, versus ~150? We're going to grow to 150 some-day anyways and I bet we'll still have a board of 9 directors. that's what the Board's formal feedback to the IPMC just now is about. So, under this scheme, the particular mentors that make up the initial PMC of a project are the ones the Board is trusting, and if any step down, they absolutely need to be replaced. Yep that's true, Benson. I support proposing this structure to the Board, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the answer is 'no'. We'll see, I've learned not to make predictions *grin* Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ... This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at the advice of a small iPMC. No. Forget IPMC. The VP, Project Incubation and their committee doesn't advise, the members as a whole do, and propose the initial list of mentors. general@ doesn't change, it's still the place for 'me, too!' offers to mentor an incoming proposal. But yes, that set of mentors provides the initial guidance to the project and is responsible for reporting to the board. As a board reporting committee, the board too also has supervision based on those reports. One thing that does not change; every ASF member has oversight privilage over most every private list at the ASF, including our current PPMC and new Incubating PMC private lists. In other words, a project is born when three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate by the small iPMC, are constituted as a project by the board, with one (the recently invented champion) as the chair. When 3+ mentors step up on general, the members participating on general@ give something approaching consensus, the VP, Project Incubation simply submits a resolution and the board takes it up and passes it (as is, or amended). And yes, the champion is the logical first-chair until the project graduates or they are replaced for other reasons. The board could also take up a resolution to charter an Incubating PMC without the advisory vote on general@. That is a bit different than today, when imposing a podling onto Incubator would be somewhat absurd. It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: that's what the Board's formal feedback to the IPMC just now is about. So, under this scheme, the particular mentors that make up the initial PMC of a project are the ones the Board is trusting, and if any step down, they absolutely need to be replaced. Bingo :) I support proposing this structure to the Board, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the answer is 'no'. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
On 1 February 2012 22:13, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Link: http://s.apache.org/qsY It's worthwhile to review the entire surrounding thread in August 2010 for IPMC members to avoid rehashing old arguments. Thanks for the reminder Joe. I recall that thread now. I find it interesting reading my own comments, I was terrified of having to contradict myself. However, fortunately I still hold the same opinion. I referred to Wookie in that thread, which was a new podling at the time. I said the community had more to learn before benefiting from you proposed experiment, but acknowledged this was because of active mentorship and good community leadership. Today I find that at least one member of that community would benefit from being an IPMC member (as well as the IPMC benefitting). I've not proposed them as I am not convinced the vote would pass given the current variety of views on PPMC members being IPMC members. I also referred to a (then unnamed project) that I felt might immediately benefit from being a part of your experiment. That project was Jena. It is currently ramping up to graduation. I'm not a mentor on that project so can't say whether there are people who would want to be in the IPMC, but I've watched the lists from a distance and suspect there are candidates. Certainly Jena is a large project and has navigated some fairly tricky issues. Finally, Rave (also preparing to graduate) has at least one *very* strong candidate for the inclusion in the IPMC. Given all this and the balance of the discussion back in August 2010 and recent discussions relating to this topic I am +1 for an expansion of the experiment. I nominate Wookie and Rave as participants. I do not, at this time nominate other projects I mentor as I am not as active there and don't feel qualified to make recommendations. Ross Ross - Original Message - From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:07 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects Joe, can you please restate (or link to the archives) the intent and practice of your experiment Ross On 1 February 2012 22:02, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:32:23AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote: I believe this is what Marvin is alluding to when he points out that compentent IPMC oversight is little more than an illusive myth on most of our podlings. A PPMC member, by virtue of their deep familiarity with the code base and close monitoring of ongoing development, is, once they have internalized ASF values and studied relevant legal issues, in a *better* position to review a release and protect their project's integrity than any Mentor. We rely on the committers to police themselves and we trust that they do, but we do not, as a group, empower such people to perform that work on behalf of the IPMC. Giving suitably diligent podling contributors real oversight responsibility and accountability while they are still in the Incubator, allowing them to serve alongside experienced Mentors, watch them, ask them questions and participate in their struggle... that's what, in my opinion, will prepare them to become superior stewards of their projects after graduation. Agreed Marvin, but we have a long way to go before people will ever realize this approach will largely solve our outstanding problems regarding IPMC releases. People have to feel comfortable relaxing control of the reigns, and let go of the idea that only a very limited and special group of people are capable of performing real oversight for the foundation. It's not easy, and it's certainly not conducive to Western ways of thinking about governance and society. But it works. IMO we should proceed the same way as always, by taking small and largely reversible steps. Let's expand the experiment I started in 2010 to another handful of projects, and see what really happens. I suggest we include ManifoldCF for now. Any others willing to participate? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
We have already 2 good nominations for the IPMC chair role, Noel and Benson. I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas. Cheers Christian On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: This belongs on general@ ... A call for nominations for Incubator PMC Chair was started on the private@ list. The nomination process should be open to the Incubator community. --- Noel -Original Message- Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:30 To: priv...@incubator.apache.org Subject: NOMINATIONS for IPMC Chair I nominate __, assuming he is willing and able to handle the workload - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/1/2012 5:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings: It certainly makes your proposal about mentor qualifications important, yes. But I wouldn't say that the 2nd part naturally follows. Why wouldn't the board want to supervise podlings? IOW, what's the difference between ~100 Apache projects, versus ~150? We're going to grow to 150 some-day anyways and I bet we'll still have a board of 9 directors. Today, the board reviews some 30 reports, one of which is many pages long. Under the proposed schema the board might review some 50 reports, each of which is several paragraphs long, and the net length of the monthly board report doesn't change at all. Even the two or three paragraphs of commentary usually offered by the VP would still be there, observing the comings and goings of general@ activity. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very small operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions. Some amount of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee. I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is. Simply, there needs to be someone (backed by a committee with specific individual responsibilities, if that person likes) to shepherd state changes into a board resolutions, ensure they hit the board agenda, maintain what we call the 'incubation web site' today, and answer inquiries about 'how do we go about X?' You can suggest that the directors, members and site-dev people take on all of those tasks, but we know that randomly distributed responsibilities don't work out so well. That's why there is now a collection of these VP roles at the ASF. Take VP, Project Incubation out of the role of judging incoming or graduating projects. Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience). Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors. Make a choice between including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and somewhat predictable flowchart. Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost their mentors. This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset on established projects. Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP. If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements above and think they jive with my proposal. I view this more as giving the members the opportunity to raise questions and issues of how a particular project proposal would fit here, which is what they do anyways. This only makes it more formal. You keep the VP simply as the record keeper and executor of the decisions on general@. Why? Given the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held, and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have done internal harm. Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals and cast such votes. That's OK, they are still representative of the membership. If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the proposed project. Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than served their purpose. Well, the scope of general@ shrinks dramatically, although it can continue to be a place for a recently approved project to holler help, we need more help!. You might view the VP as overlapping the Champion. But do we want every one of the Champions to have to be intimately familiar with the form of the board resolutions, or consolidate some of the book-keeping? VP Project Incubation works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team works with all the individual projects as a resource, but isn't responsible for the oversight of individual project security defects. I don't see this working without an appointed coordinator. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache OpenNLP as a TLP
Hello all, the vote passes, we received 7 binding+1 votes. No other votes we received. The following people voted: +1 Benson Margulies +1 Tommaso Teofili +1 Chris A. Mattmann +1 Isabel Drost +1 Mark Struberg +1 Christian Grobmeier +1 Alan D. Cabrera Thanks to everyone for voting! Jörn On 1/18/12 4:14 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote: Hello everyone, the OpenNLP community has voted to graduate and requests that the IPMC vote on recommending this resolution to the ASF Board. Community graduation vote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-opennlp-dev/201112.mbox/%3c4edd484c.5020...@gmail.com%3E Please cast your vote: [ ] +1 to recommend OpenNLP's graduation [ ] 0 don't care [ ] -1 no, don't recommend yet, (because...) Regards, Jörn ## Resolution to create a TLP from graduating Incubator podling X. Establish the Apache OpenNLP Project WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the processing of natural language text supported by machine learning for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache OpenNLP Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache OpenNLP Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of software related to the processing of natural language text supported by machine learning; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Apache OpenNLP be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache OpenNLP Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache OpenNLP Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache OpenNLP Project: William Silvia co...@apache.org Thomas Morton tsmor...@apache.org Jason Baldridge jbald...@apache.org James Kosin jko...@apache.org Jörn Kottmann jo...@apache.org Aliaksandr Autayeu auta...@apache.org Boris Galitsky bgalit...@apache.org Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Benson Margulies bimargul...@apache.org Isabel Drost exam...@apache.org NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Jörn Kottmann be appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache OpenNLP, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache OpenNLP PMC be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Apache OpenNLP Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache OpenNLP Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator OpenNLP podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache Incubator OpenNLP podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator Project are hereafter discharged. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:16:22AM +0100, Christian Grobmeier wrote: I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas. Mattmann has been a dependable and attentive Mentor for Lucy through thick and thin. His passion for the ASF and the Incubator has been demonstrated in part by walking the walk for us. As someone with a deliberative temperament, I also appreciate Chris's JFDI bulldozer spirit. Bonus: Chris types several times faster than a normal human being. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
+1! From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 7:20 PM Subject: Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair) On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:16:22AM +0100, Christian Grobmeier wrote: I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas. Mattmann has been a dependable and attentive Mentor for Lucy through thick and thin. His passion for the ASF and the Incubator has been demonstrated in part by walking the walk for us. As someone with a deliberative temperament, I also appreciate Chris's JFDI bulldozer spirit. Bonus: Chris types several times faster than a normal human being. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
don't we also have jukka? On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: We have already 2 good nominations for the IPMC chair role, Noel and Benson. I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas. Cheers Christian On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: This belongs on general@ ... A call for nominations for Incubator PMC Chair was started on the private@ list. The nomination process should be open to the Incubator community. --- Noel -Original Message- Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:30 To: priv...@incubator.apache.org Subject: NOMINATIONS for IPMC Chair I nominate __, assuming he is willing and able to handle the workload - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - 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
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: don't we also have jukka? Jukka expressed (to be found somewhere in the archives) he does not need additonal workload at the moment. In addition he is already JackRabbit Chair, not sure, but I think 2 chair roles are not possible at one time. On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: We have already 2 good nominations for the IPMC chair role, Noel and Benson. I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas. Cheers Christian On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: This belongs on general@ ... A call for nominations for Incubator PMC Chair was started on the private@ list. The nomination process should be open to the Incubator community. --- Noel -Original Message- Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:30 To: priv...@incubator.apache.org Subject: NOMINATIONS for IPMC Chair I nominate __, assuming he is willing and able to handle the workload - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - 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 -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
On 2/1/2012 6:52 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: don't we also have jukka? Jukka expressed (to be found somewhere in the archives) he does not need additonal workload at the moment. In addition he is already JackRabbit Chair, not sure, but I think 2 chair roles are not possible at one time. Of course it's possible, there's one individual holding 6 offices at once right now. But is it desirable? That's another question. As he said he's too busy ATM, guess that thread is complete. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very small operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions. Some amount of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee. I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is. Simply, there needs to be someone (backed by a committee with specific individual responsibilities, if that person likes) to shepherd state changes into a board resolutions, ensure they hit the board agenda, maintain what we call the 'incubation web site' today, and answer inquiries about 'how do we go about X?' You can suggest that the directors, members and site-dev people take on all of those tasks, but we know that randomly distributed responsibilities don't work out so well. That's why there is now a collection of these VP roles at the ASF. But I didn't suggest those set of people. You did. And I purposefully didn't suggest them just as you purposefully threw them up as people you wouldn't think were right for the role to illustrate your point. As you hint at below (and that's where I'll respond), my proposal suggests empowering the actual chairs of the committees of podlings as those responsible. That's the role of the Champion and it's no different than the role of a VP, let's be done with it and say the Champion is the initial Podling VP, subject to the same rigamarole and replaceability, rotation, whatever that any chair is. The point is: podlings can start acting like projects from day 1, that's what we encourage. They *are* projects. And if they aren't, we'll find out soon enough. Take VP, Project Incubation out of the role of judging incoming or graduating projects. Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience). Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors. Make a choice between including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and somewhat predictable flowchart. Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost their mentors. This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset on established projects. Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP. If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements above and think they jive with my proposal. I view this more as giving the members the opportunity to raise questions and issues of how a particular project proposal would fit here, which is what they do anyways. This only makes it more formal. You keep the VP simply as the record keeper and executor of the decisions on general@. I agree with your sentiments towards the membership's role. However, I maintain, I still don't think you need the VP of the Incubator; it's just extra overhead that's not needed. Why? Given the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held, and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have done internal harm. Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals and cast such votes. That's OK, they are still representative of the membership. If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the proposed project. Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than served their purpose. Well, the scope of general@ shrinks dramatically, although it can continue to be a place for a recently approved project to holler help, we need more help!. +1. Super +1. Yes, I agree. You might view the VP as overlapping the Champion. Yep, I do. But do we want every one of the Champions to have to
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ... VP Project Incubation works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team works with all the individual projects as a resource, but isn't responsible for the oversight of individual project security defects. Yeah, I get what you're saying. You say the VP Incubator is a resource, but to me the role is the head of a committee that just adds extra burden and overhead to what should inherently be distributed and decentralized. I don't see this working without an appointed coordinator. I do :) just with the coordinating living within the project, just like TLPs, and that's the Champion/VP of the podling. This proposal creates a differentiation between normal TLPs and incubating TLPs. The incubating TLPs have extra restrictions on them (branding, releases, etc), and they need extra tracking to determine whether they are ready to graduate. I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) Mailing lists need somebody to own them, too, or they end up in a weird state. This new-fangled Incubator group would be the owner of the general@ list where proposals come in and are discussed. The VP of an incubating-TLP has ASF experience, but is otherwise just another peer on the PMC and is the liaison with the Board. I'm not sure that it makes sense to give them these extra burden[s] that you're talking about. Decentralization is good, but I concur with Bill's analogy to security@ -- a group that helps to start and track the incubation status of some of our TLPs. By the time a TLP is ready to graduate, they might be self-aware enough to self-certify, but I'd be more comfortable with an Incubator group doing the review and recommendation. All this said, I can see an argument to combine this Incubation function/operations with ComDev. Certainly, the latter will have all the education resources. The question is whether the execution is distinct or rolled into ComDev. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Fwd: mentoring individuals as well as projects
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:15:53PM +, Ross Gardler wrote: On 1 February 2012 22:13, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Link: http://s.apache.org/qsY It's worthwhile to review the entire surrounding thread in August 2010 for IPMC members to avoid rehashing old arguments. Thanks for the reminder Joe. I recall that thread now. I find it interesting reading my own comments, I was terrified of having to contradict myself. However, fortunately I still hold the same opinion. Haha, I went back and reread that thread as well. Everything old is new again! The difference between then and now is that the subjects of the experiment, Thrift and ESME, have graduated and apparently become happy top level projects. Given all this and the balance of the discussion back in August 2010 and recent discussions relating to this topic I am +1 for an expansion of the experiment. +1 for measured expansion. On the subject of mentoring individuals: Lucy wasn't part of the experiment, but after I joined the IPMC, the situation became similar, and I've been expected to operate under similar rules to Byran Duxbury of Thrift and Richard Hirsch of ESME. Lucy Mentors Chris Mattmann, Joe Schaefer and Chris Hostetter have all put in a lot of time and thought working with us on community health and outreach and transitioning away from our former BDFL governance. I haven't been the only beneficiary of these lessons, but by moving to more of a support role I've probably had to stretch the furthest, and thus I may have reaped the greatest rewards. (Peter Karman has stepped forward to handle more leadership tasks, but he was already an accomplished manager so the role is familiar; other people are coding more but they already had that down cold!) Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: principles of Apache communities
Joe Schaefer wrote: Here are some of the things that guide me in my decision- making about governance and Apache communities. Please feel to add you own thoughts on the subject! 1) Fairness and Equitable Treatment- that it is wrong to apply different standards to different people based solely on their (external) accrued status. 2) Tolerance- that we respect the diversity of opinion without the need for tit-for-tat arguments about who is right. 3) Fun- that the nature of participation here is personally satisfying and not onerous. 4) Consistency- that we don't apply different standards to different people based on whatever hot topic is currently being debated. 5) Competence- that we entrust people who are most familiar with the work being performed to exercise their oversight and judgement about the codebase. 6) Empowerment- that people who show sustained levels of competence and oversight capabilities are rewarded with higher levels of organizational responsibility. [more later] Good stuff. For ages i have wanted to add a page somewhere that explains very clearly principles and constraints for the ASF. Alas little time and none now. The research that i was able to manage was to find a post where Roy explained: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200603.mbox/%3caf1860b6-a15e-4e8f-9cf9-f11ed8c75...@gbiv.com%3E -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
