Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 7, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On May 7, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On a whole different direction, one way to scale is to shift from Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would effectively be a TLP on probation. The Champion, Mentors, and Board would be providing oversight. I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to formally ask!) This pre-supposes that the problem is the IPMC and not the mentors. If the board members have the spare time to work on incubators then I recommend they come over to the IPMC and help out. There is a difference in responsibilities. The Board would review, and would shut it down if it goes wrong. That is very different from stepping in to directly guide. Sorry, I meant board members as individuals joining the IPMC. You would be able to do the same thing, no? If the probationary TLP is not functioning properly (mentors/champion/podling are not up to par), then it will get noticed. I think the IPMC doesn't really notice/correct for this, so yeah: that *is* my pre-supposition. I also think the Board is capable of doing this, rather than needing the IPMC layer between the podling and the Board. Then the IPMC needs to be fixed. Shuttling the kids off to the grandparents is not a solution. The IPMC needs to be fixed. I also feel reporting directly to the Board is necessary education. And part of the difference is that the Board reviews/discusses the reports. The IPMC does not have any discussion. The shepherds may set off some discussion, so they are a good way to try and get some IPMC-level review/discussion going. You're describing an dysfunctional Incubator PMC. Shepherds are a distraction from the fact that mentors are not doing their jobs and the IPMC seems unwilling to hold them responsible. Note: this approach absolutely follows your basic point: Mentors need to step up and do what they volunteered for. There is nobody to fill in for their absence, other than the probationary TLP itself. The Board certainly will not be doing any hand-holding. (and they might be a bit more ruthless than the IPMC) Because the mentors are not doing their jobs, the podlings, which are on probation projects to begin with, are now to be probationary top level projects, under those very same absent mentors, under the auspices of the Board, while the IPMC does what? Sorry, but that sounds like double secret probation. ;) How long is the board going to do this? This seems, to me, to be adding more obfuscation in an orthogonal direction to that of shuttling responsibilities over to champions. Both directions, imho, are distractions from the real hard work ahead. Just my 2 cents. :) Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Would like to be added to Climate incubator group
Thanks Suresh! ++ 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 ++ -Original Message- From: Suresh Marru sma...@apache.org Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Would like to be added to Climate incubator group On May 6, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Michael Joyce jo...@apache.org wrote: Hello! I just wanted to check up on this. Is there anything I need to do to help get this resolved? Thanks much! On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Michael Joyce jo...@apache.org wrote: Hello! I'm part of the Open Climate Workbench podling and need to be added to the incubator group for commits. Can you help me out? Hi Michael, If I am understanding your request correctly, you were listed as the Initial Committers when the Climate Proposal [1] was approved and you are wanting to have the right commit bits right? I just added you to incubator unix group, I see you are already added to climate group in asf-authorization-template. Try a commit to climate svn. Cheers, Suresh [1] - http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ClimateProposal Thanks much - 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
If I were king of the forest
If I were king of the forest, I would be to fire all the mentors. All except, of course, me, because I'm the king. :) All the ex-mentors would become emeritus mentors that can be reinstated merely by asking. Those emeritus mentors who wish to remain mentors must acknowledge that they will perform their duties as out lined in a clearly defined document. All mentors must be IPMC members, period. People who wish to become mentors that are not in the IPMC must be a novice mentor, whose mentorship is not counted as an active mentor, for at least one podling's incubation. ASF members can become IPMC members. Non-ASF members must mentor a project before becoming an IPMX member. The champion role would be removed. Shepherd roles would be removed. Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this else the mentor risks being removed for not performing their duties. Podlings that do not have the minimum of two active mentors are put on hold until they find enough mentors to fill the quota. Being put on hold means that no committers can be added, no PPMC members can be added, and no releases can be performed. It does not stop development. People starting threads must provide editorial summaries else the thread is considered to be a tree falling in the forest. If you can't commit to providing summaries then you shouldn't start threads that waste people's time. Releases need +1 votes from the two active mentors. A subsequent 72 hour quiet period would follow for IPMC members to vote as well. I would make hard decisions and actively retire inactive projects. I would start more tooling initiatives to automate even more mundane tasks that are a drag to incubation. What we would gain is transparency and simplicity. There would be no false expectations. Podlings would know where they stand. Work would be equitably distributed. No more layers. No more additional roles. No more shuffling. The solution is not more process and more complexity. But I am not the king. It is my sincere hope that we drop useless, imho, baby steps that only serve to churn up email storms and ill will, and take the bold steps needed to re-invigorate this, most critical, project of the ASF. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Alan
Re: If I were king of the forest
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ...If I were king of the forest, I would be to fire all the mentors. All except, of course, me, because I'm the king. :) All the ex-mentors would become emeritus mentors that can be reinstated merely by asking An annual spring cleaning of mentors, where all of them reconfirm their commitment and we remove those who don't, might be a good idea. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Looking for a Champion
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Tom Everett t...@khubla.com wrote: ...I haven't made a significant effort to build a community around Pragmatach, mainly because I'm not familiar with how to announce it, where, and to whom... The best way to build a community is to write enough initial code to demonstrate your ideas and get people excited about it. That can happen on github or elsewhere, and once you have initial code and an initial community it's much easier for your project to enter the Incubator and find the required mentors and champion. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On 7 May 2013 21:15, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On a whole different direction, one way to scale is to shift from Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would effectively be a TLP on probation. The Champion, Mentors, and Board would be providing oversight. I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+ reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to formally ask!) It doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that *occasionally* the IPMC is accepting projects based on the good intentions of mentors who subsequently are unable to fulfill their obligations. I do agree that the board would notice such cases (as does the IPMC in most cases). What would it do then? It would probably provide general advice, possibly pointing to the IPMC or to ComDev and revisit in the next report. If nothing improves then the board would likely shut down the project. I agree with Greg that the board has the cycles to read more reviews (hell, most of the directors, if not all, already read all the podling reports), however, it doesn't have the cycles to fix podlings that are having difficulties. It also doesn't have the cycles to do IP review on releases as well as the general guidance that happens here (which despite the frequent flamewars about structure is often useful). I don't see that changing from a podling to a probationary TLP makes any difference to the problem Benson is trying to address. That said, I don't think the current proposal of adding more checks and balances makes any difference either. The probationary PMC proposal of Chris' which Greg is championing gives teeth to the whole process. That's what the IPMC needs - teeth. But it also needs a mechanism for providing the support needed by some projects (or it needs to stop accepting those projects in the first place - they are usually fairly easy to spot). How often does the IPMC reject a proposal? I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained support. In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting projects that are likely to run into problems according to our collective experience. Ross Cheers, -g On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote: The problem that most podlings I've been involved with, whilst having six mentors, have ended up with just me playing any part. On paper, it looks like these podlings are in a great place, in fact, they only have a single active mentor. What is wanted is to know who is, and who isn't active. To spot problems. Benson's idea is to say that a simple 'I'm here' message would really help the incubator PMC. I'd agree with that. The question is, who's job is it to track all this. Should the PMC go look and do all the leg-work, or should projects and their mentors take some of the load? Really, the more responsibility is centralised, the less the incubator will scale. Looking for ways that mentors can show their involvement is a good thing. I guess that could be automated (grep through mail archives for mentor email addresses each month), but until that happens, I'd say it would be a good thing for mentors/champions to take some of that load off the incubator PMC. It need merely be a reply to a Marvin 'are you there' email. Upayavira On Tue, May 7, 2013, at 04:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote: On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand. 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to the 'volunteer dilemma'. For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable burden. Fair enough, disagree. Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place. That's unfair. I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to their responsibility. This feels beyond the minimal governance necessary and a solution to the wrong problem. It'd helpful to say precisely what problem that this heartbeat is intended to solve, in that way, we are afforded the opportunity to propose an alternative solution - for example, by focusing on highlighting the
Re: If I were king of the forest
On 8 May 2013 01:01, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ...If I were king of the forest, I would be to fire all the mentors. All except, of course, me, because I'm the king. :) All the ex-mentors would become emeritus mentors that can be reinstated merely by asking An annual spring cleaning of mentors, where all of them reconfirm their commitment and we remove those who don't, might be a good idea. I find many good ideas in Alan's post (it has teeth - see my reply to the previous thread). Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt. In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if those discussions drove some of us to distraction. A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals All the rest of this aside, in your wiki page at 2.2 it says - When a podling reports, it is absolutely required to provide a list of releases. - could something like the following change to the report template generation script be enough for that (do you need a list or is just the last release enough?): Index: clutch2report.py === --- clutch2report.py(revision 1479828) +++ clutch2report.py(working copy) @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ How has the project developed since the last report? +Date of last release: + Please check this [ ] when you have filled in the report for $name. Signed-off-by: ...ant This seems harmless and useful so I'll commit it unless anyone objects. Benson, let me know if its enough for you. That will at least give 25% of the things you've suggested in the proposal. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained support.. URL? ...In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting projects that are likely to run into problems according to our collective experience If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire you for this lottery betting club ;-) Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: If I were king of the forest
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ... Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this else the mentor risks being removed for not performing their duties. I like it all. A lot. It's an attempt to solve the real problem. But how do you define inactive and how do you identify them and on what periodicity? And, if they're a Member how long must such a person wait before re-signing up to be a mentor? Thanks, --tim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I perceive here that we have reached a favorite knot: the tension between 'mentor as coach' and 'mentor as supervisor'. This PMC's job, as delegated by the board, is supervision. If the mentors don't supervise, who will? On the other hand, the very term, 'mentor', is much more suggestive of 'coach' than 'supervisor'. My proposal tries to deal with a bit of this by focusing on the champion, asking that person to sign up to at least feeling supervisory once a month. To those who felt potentially oppressed by my monthly micro-report, please recall: I proposed to glue that job to the champion, only bringing other mentors into it in case of need and by request. It has no routine monthly reporting requirement for mentors, per se. Ross' alternative, which has antecedents in previous discussions, goes in the direction I might label as let 'mentors' be mentors, a bit, by formalizing shepherds to give consistent supervision. We could, ring any number of changes on that theme, including requiring every podling to launch with N mentors and M supervisors. I continue to hope for consensus on the thing I wrote. That does not make me opposed to Ross, or Alan, or any other thoughtful ideas about additional changes. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained support.. URL? ...In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting projects that are likely to run into problems according to our collective experience If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire you for this lottery betting club ;-) Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here. -Bertrand - 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: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...I continue to hope for consensus on the thing I wrote... I had another look at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals and I like it. While asking all podlings to confirm their current champion (which your proposal implicitly requires) we might add Alan's proposal to fire all mentors, or rather just ask them to reconfirm their current commitments, either just once or as an annual spring cleaning operation. Do that, remove inactive mentors and see where that leaves existing podlings. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ...If I were king of the forest, I would be to fire all the mentors. All except, of course, me, because I'm the king. :) All the ex-mentors would become emeritus mentors that can be reinstated merely by asking An annual spring cleaning of mentors, where all of them reconfirm their commitment and we remove those who don't, might be a good idea. Yep, and no more layers. No more additional roles. No more shuffling. One of the classic symptoms of dysfunctional group is it's tendency to try to solve problems with more process and policy. Let's ask ourselves, if each podling had two active mentors, what problems would be left for the Incubator? Not a whole heck of a lot. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 8, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...I continue to hope for consensus on the thing I wrote... I had another look at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BensonApril2013ProcessProposals and I like it. While asking all podlings to confirm their current champion (which your proposal implicitly requires) we might add Alan's proposal to fire all mentors, or rather just ask them to reconfirm their current commitments, either just once or as an annual spring cleaning operation. Do that, remove inactive mentors and see where that leaves existing podlings. I am against watering down the role of the mentors. What this proposal is basically results in is doing away multiple mentors for a podling and whittling it down to one mentor whose name is now champion. Clearly not the way to go. Let's ask ourselves, if each podling had two active mentors, what problems would be left for the Incubator? Not a whole heck of a lot. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 8, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: The probationary PMC proposal of Chris' which Greg is championing gives teeth to the whole process. That's what the IPMC needs - teeth. Shuttling the kids off to the grandparents, even if they have all their teeth, is not the way to go. :) But it also needs a mechanism for providing the support needed by some projects (or it needs to stop accepting those projects in the first place - they are usually fairly easy to spot). How often does the IPMC reject a proposal? Why reject a proposal? Just put it on a queue until it's able to get the requisite two active mentors. It's that simple. Regards, Alan
Re: If I were king of the forest
Mostly a lurker, but a quick reply... On 5/8/13 2:53 AM, Tim Williams wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ... Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this else the mentor risks being removed for not performing their duties. I like it all. A lot. It's an attempt to solve the real problem. But how do you define inactive and how do you identify them and on what periodicity? And, if they're a Member how long must such a person wait before re-signing up to be a mentor? From the original email: they will perform their duties as out lined in a clearly defined document. Based on what I see on the mailing list, some of the functions seem clear: - voting on releases - commenting on reports - assessing proposed committers - ... And, in order to facilitate continuous improvement over time, the incubator as a whole could periodically survey random incubator committers and determine whether they're getting the support they expect from their mentors. That would serve two purposes - provide a routine way to assess whether the expectations of the mentorees lines up with the clearly documented role, and also assessing whether the randomly chosen mentor is living up to their responsibilities. One last suggested refinement: At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Eric. Thanks, --tim - 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: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 2:53 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ... Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this else the mentor risks being removed for not performing their duties. I like it all. A lot. It's an attempt to solve the real problem. But how do you define inactive and how do you identify them and on what periodicity? Not reviewing reports Not reviewing releases Not responding to PPMC requests in a timely manner And, if they're a Member how long must such a person wait before re-signing up to be a mentor? I assume that you speak of ASF members. The fact that they are members has already vetted them. There's no need to go through the trial mentor period. Inactive mentors are moved to emeritus. Emeritus mentors merely need to ask to be reinstated, after reaffirm that they will perform their duties as out lined in a clearly defined document. Since mentors are IPMC members and can be trusted, I doubt that we will have chronic re-enrollment of ejected mentors. Regards, Alan
Re: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: Mostly a lurker, but a quick reply... And, in order to facilitate continuous improvement over time, the incubator as a whole could periodically survey random incubator committers and determine whether they're getting the support they expect from their mentors. That would serve two purposes - provide a routine way to assess whether the expectations of the mentorees lines up with the clearly documented role, and also assessing whether the randomly chosen mentor is living up to their responsibilities. Yeah, an anonymous comment box for podlings to submit comments to the IPMC. That's another tooling idea. One last suggested refinement: At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote: If I were king of the forest, I would be to fire all the mentors. All except, of course, me, because I'm the king. :) All the ex-mentors would become emeritus mentors that can be reinstated merely by asking. There is a fundamental flaw here, there is no mention of how the king can be impeached and a new king be sworn in :). kidding, great thoughts Alan, more below. Those emeritus mentors who wish to remain mentors must acknowledge that they will perform their duties as out lined in a clearly defined document. All mentors must be IPMC members, period. People who wish to become mentors that are not in the IPMC must be a novice mentor, whose mentorship is not counted as an active mentor, for at least one podling's incubation. ASF members can become IPMC members. Non-ASF members must mentor a project before becoming an IPMX member. The champion role would be removed. Shepherd roles would be removed. I certainly agree that this simple structure will be more sustainable then the work around layers which we have seen slowly gets diluted. Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this else the mentor risks being removed for not performing their duties. Podlings that do not have the minimum of two active mentors are put on hold until they find enough mentors to fill the quota. Being put on hold means that no committers can be added, no PPMC members can be added, and no releases can be performed. It does not stop development. People starting threads must provide editorial summaries else the thread is considered to be a tree falling in the forest. If you can't commit to providing summaries then you shouldn't start threads that waste people's time. Releases need +1 votes from the two active mentors. A subsequent 72 hour quiet period would follow for IPMC members to vote as well. I am assuming (or rather hoping) the third vote will happen on the general list. Which ever form the incubator (or lack of) shapes into, the general list is were I have seen the most cross-fertizliation happens. I agree that we need to address releases not getting attention, I felt the release trips to general were extremely educational. During incubation, this process felt too painful and furstrating but looking back, release process and gets vastly improvised during these iterations. And once set out on a right tone, its a matter of incrementally maintaining it. I would make hard decisions and actively retire inactive projects. I would start more tooling initiatives to automate even more mundane tasks that are a drag to incubation. + 1. Constructive wishes over all, Suresh What we would gain is transparency and simplicity. There would be no false expectations. Podlings would know where they stand. Work would be equitably distributed. No more layers. No more additional roles. No more shuffling. The solution is not more process and more complexity. But I am not the king. It is my sincere hope that we drop useless, imho, baby steps that only serve to churn up email storms and ill will, and take the bold steps needed to re-invigorate this, most critical, project of the ASF. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: If I were king of the forest
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:00:14AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: One last suggested refinement: At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)? If the mentors were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC? In some cases, podlings have enough active mentors that this whole thread doesn't apply (clearly the discussion is about areas where there are problems). My concern would be making it harder for *well functioning* podlings / mentors to get through releases. -chip [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: A lot of reports missing these period
Does anyone know where the Marvin code bits live? Regards, Alan On May 7, 2013, at 7:25 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote: Christian Grobmeier wrote: Folks, its reporting time and at the wiki are a lot of them missing! http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/May2013 Ambari Blur DeltaSpike (hasn't it graduated?) The Voting Status page indicates that they have not finalised their graduation vote, nor commenced the graduation steps. So the incubator records and automated systems are wonky. -David Droids Falcon Hadoop Development Tools MRQL Open Climate Workbench Provisionr Tajo Tez Please mentors of these projects catch up with your podlings. Cheers Christian - 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: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Suresh Marru sma...@apache.org wrote: Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A mentor is free to become inactive but must explicitly state this else the mentor risks being removed for not performing their duties. Podlings that do not have the minimum of two active mentors are put on hold until they find enough mentors to fill the quota. Being put on hold means that no committers can be added, no PPMC members can be added, and no releases can be performed. It does not stop development. People starting threads must provide editorial summaries else the thread is considered to be a tree falling in the forest. If you can't commit to providing summaries then you shouldn't start threads that waste people's time. Releases need +1 votes from the two active mentors. A subsequent 72 hour quiet period would follow for IPMC members to vote as well. I am assuming (or rather hoping) the third vote will happen on the general list. Which ever form the incubator (or lack of) shapes into, the general list is were I have seen the most cross-fertizliation happens. I agree that we need to address releases not getting attention, I felt the release trips to general were extremely educational. During incubation, this process felt too painful and furstrating but looking back, release process and gets vastly improvised during these iterations. And once set out on a right tone, its a matter of incrementally maintaining it. The quite period may be a misnomer. Since the release will have had two +1 votes from active mentors, no further work is required to release. The 72 hour period is for IPMC members to also cast their vote if they so desire. Inevitably bike shed issues pop in during this period but I agree that new podlings often flush out new and unique situations. Regards, Alan
Re: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote: On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:00:14AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: One last suggested refinement: At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)? If the mentors were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC? We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to. Oh, I see this is an ASF rule. Maybe we should have three active mentors? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: If I were king of the forest
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:40:59AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote: On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:00:14AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: One last suggested refinement: At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)? If the mentors were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC? We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to. Oh, I see this is an ASF rule. Maybe we should have three active mentors? That was exactly my point, yes. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Would like to be added to Climate incubator group
Thanks Suresh, this is exactly what I needed! I'm able to commit now. Cheers! On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Thanks Suresh! ++ 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 ++ -Original Message- From: Suresh Marru sma...@apache.org Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:01 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Would like to be added to Climate incubator group On May 6, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Michael Joyce jo...@apache.org wrote: Hello! I just wanted to check up on this. Is there anything I need to do to help get this resolved? Thanks much! On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Michael Joyce jo...@apache.org wrote: Hello! I'm part of the Open Climate Workbench podling and need to be added to the incubator group for commits. Can you help me out? Hi Michael, If I am understanding your request correctly, you were listed as the Initial Committers when the Climate Proposal [1] was approved and you are wanting to have the right commit bits right? I just added you to incubator unix group, I see you are already added to climate group in asf-authorization-template. Try a commit to climate svn. Cheers, Suresh [1] - http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ClimateProposal Thanks much - 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: If I were king of the forest
If I'm a king of a dream forest... I think how to improve attractiveness of free software to contributors. It is no longer a cool trend. How about find some resources (maybe internal ones) to make people strengthen the community by creative reasons? Business reasons are short living (compared to creative reasons) and unpedictable. There is a long and unproductive discussion on how to make foss more attractive to business, improving it won't not hurt either. Maybe attracting some educational resources / collaborating with them would help. This 100% success GSoC rate makes us turning some students away from Apache, and they should have some place to stay and learn and grow. More new blood will create more productive and successful and caring mentors. -- With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями, Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов, http://dataved.ru/ +7 916 562 8095 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.comwrote: On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:40:59AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote: On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:00:14AM -0700, Alan Cabrera wrote: On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: One last suggested refinement: At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)? If the mentors were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC? We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to. Oh, I see this is an ASF rule. Maybe we should have three active mentors? That was exactly my point, yes. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Created] (PODLINGNAMESEARCH-32) Establish whether Apache MRQL is a suitable name
Alan Cabrera created PODLINGNAMESEARCH-32: - Summary: Establish whether Apache MRQL is a suitable name Key: PODLINGNAMESEARCH-32 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-32 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 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: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: One last suggested refinement: At least two mentors, but perhaps not allow more than three, where the third is generally a backup for the others in a transition period, such as one of the mentors looking to shed their responsibilities. One point that has come out of the discussion has been a lack of clear responsibility. Adding more mentors dilutes that responsibility. Two allows one as backup for the other. Yes, this was what I was thinking as well. Two active mentors, maybe one or two inactive ones but since they officially declared themselves inactive the active mentor know not to assume anything of them. I may be incorrect in my understanding of the official ASF policy here [1], but WRT a release, doesn't it require at least 3 +1 votes of the appropriate PMC (in the case of podlings, the IPMC)? If the mentors were limited to 2 within the podlings, then would that leave all podling in a position of having to get a third +1 from the IPMC? We're the IPMC, we can change the rules if we need to. Oh, I see this is an ASF rule. Maybe we should have three active mentors? Three active mentors is fine. But I personally would rather prefer a trip to general for the 3rd vote just to get diverse perspectives. But again this is debatable in the light of unattended release threads, but I am looking at the positive learning aspect here. But I am not a good judge of whats best because I hardly have spent time to verify releases outside the projects I am mentoring. I am eager to hear from people like Sebb who provide outstanding release verification in this forum. Will a lazy consensus IPMC time be as motivating (for taking time to verify releases) as the required 3rd vote? In any case, I will not divert the topic and dilute the just of the entire thread. Looking foreword to see all these threads converge into some actionable form soon. Suresh Regards, Alan - 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: If I were king of the forest
On May 8, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Suresh Marru sma...@apache.org wrote: Will a lazy consensus IPMC time be as motivating (for taking time to verify releases) as the required 3rd vote? Sebb is awesome. I think people make the effort because they want to. The 72 hour period allow for people to participate if they wish. Having the third vote already in the podling's pocket before hand will go a long way to removing the emotional angst our process produces. Regards, Alan
marvin report reminders
Alan Cabrera wrote: Does anyone know where the Marvin code bits live? At https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/tools/board_reminders/ There are various discussions in the Incubator archives about how the data lists (for mail addresses for each project due to report each month) are currently generated. Now that mail list names are more consistent for newer podlings, some of that process could be handled outside of Clutch. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: marvin report reminders
On May 8, 2013, at 8:06 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote: Alan Cabrera wrote: Does anyone know where the Marvin code bits live? At https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/tools/board_reminders/ There are various discussions in the Incubator archives about how the data lists (for mail addresses for each project due to report each month) are currently generated. Now that mail list names are more consistent for newer podlings, some of that process could be handled outside of Clutch. So the process is by naming convention rather than explicit declarations? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
