Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and > I'm pretty sure > in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community *loud red alarms going off all over my brain* If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project runs. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > ...It would be sad if this Incubator Community disappears in the proposed > move of incubating project to be reporting directly to the ASF Board... With my board member hat on, you can count on a strong -1 from me on that suggestion. I suspect I'm not the only board member with that opinion, so if people actually think of making this happen it might be worth polling the board first to avoid wasting time discussing that option. Once again, IMO focusing on actual concrete problems like we started listing at https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013 would be much more productive than blowing the whole thing up in the hope that it will somewhat re-materialize in a better form. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair > and I'm pretty sure > > in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the > community > > *loud red alarms going off all over my brain* > > If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a > regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once > that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project > runs. big +1actually the chair rotation is something we should consider having as a rule (and allow deviations for good reasins). rgds jan i > > -Bertrand > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
And another +1 from myself, as a Director voting on that proposal/resolution. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the > mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify > (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. > > Anyhoo this experiment (the 2 that have volunteered so far) would > have my board VOTE - prepare a resolution and send it to the > board agenda and let's see what happens.. > > Cheers, > Chris > > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Chief Architect > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++ > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++ > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Marvin Humphrey > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" > Date: Monday, December 29, 2014 at 8:36 PM > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" > Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP > > >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >>> Might be seen as > >>> grossly unfair by the project that remain in the old regime > > > >There's no structure like no structure! > > > >Marvin Humphrey > > > >- > >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 report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:04 AM, jan i wrote: > On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Bertrand Delacretaz > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell > > > wrote: > > > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with > Chair > > and I'm pretty sure > > > in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the > > community > > > > *loud red alarms going off all over my brain* > > > > If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a > > regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once > > that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project > > runs. > > big +1actually the chair rotation is something we should consider > having as a rule (and allow deviations for good reasins). > I cannot see the Board ever mandating chair rotations. That is up to the community. As long as the chair/VP remains administrative, then there isn't a problem. We have *many* chairs across the Foundation (myself included) that have been in their position for many years. It works well because we *support* the project, rather than any attempt to direct, steer, or lead based upon that position. The VP is the link between a project's needs and the Foundation's support for that project, along with bidirectional communication. For projects that don't understand the difference between "supportive" and "lead": yeah, they could use a dose of trout-slapping and a chair rotation or three. Cheers, -g
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > ...I cannot see the Board ever mandating chair rotations. That is up to the > community > ...For projects that don't understand the difference between "supportive" and > "lead": yeah, they could use a dose of trout-slapping and a chair rotation > or three... +1 to both statements. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > ...Given that I'll be mentoring Zeppelin, I'd love to use that as a guinea > pig. > Provided, that I'd have some level of collaboration from the board I don't have a clear idea of what the suggested experiment means, it looks like that info is scattered around several threads that I have lost track of. A brief definition on a wiki page would help make sure everybody has the same view of what you are suggesting. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator report sign-off
> On 30 Dec 2014, at 03:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: >> ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and >> I'm pretty sure >> in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community > > *loud red alarms going off all over my brain* > > If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a > regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once > that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project > runs. Indeed. But outside of self-policing, is there a mechanism to ensure that something like this, disfavouring egoistic power, is in place? Note, I’m not sure it’s actually needed, just curious. > > -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: Incubator report sign-off
+1 -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 00:56 To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and > I'm pretty sure > in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community *loud red alarms going off all over my brain* If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project runs. -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: Running an experiment with pTLP
On 12/30/2014 05:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: ...Given that I'll be mentoring Zeppelin, I'd love to use that as a guinea pig. Provided, that I'd have some level of collaboration from the board I don't have a clear idea of what the suggested experiment means, it looks like that info is scattered around several threads that I have lost track of. A brief definition on a wiki page would help make sure everybody has the same view of what you are suggesting. Yep, I was going to ask for that also. While I know (I think) what *I* mean, there's enough contradiction in the thread that it would be good to have a one-page document explaining what is meant. So, yeah, Roman, I'd be interested in participating. I've already thrown my hat in for Tinkerpop mentor, if they'll have me, but I'd be willing to work with you on Zeppelin, also. --Rich -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > ...outside of self-policing, is there a mechanism to ensure that something > like this, disfavouring egoistic > power, is in place? Note, I’m not sure it’s actually needed, just curious I don't think there's a formal mechanism, but our consensus best practices and voting rules are meant to give everyone a voice, so if project members are wary of someone grabbing too much power they have means to bring things back to sanity, IMO. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On 12/30/2014 09:00 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 30 Dec 2014, at 03:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: >>...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and I'm pretty sure >>in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community > >*loud red alarms going off all over my brain* > >If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a >regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once >that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project >runs. Indeed. But outside of self-policing, is there a mechanism to ensure that something like this, disfavouring egoistic power, is in place? Note, I’m not sure it’s actually needed, just curious. There certainly is such a mechanism. It's called "quarterly reports to the board." Which is why it's so important that reviewing board reports is more than just a checkbox, as has been accused in the past. Fortunately, I've seen pretty strong evidence in the last few years that it's *way* more than just a checkbox, with board members routinely citing older reports, going back months and years, to support their comments about projects that are drifting from the course. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Mon Dec 29 2014 at 9:50:49 AM Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > I don't particularly like that idea. For one, I know that if I were to > see > > 50%+ of mentors on a project I'm a mentor on sign off on the report, I'm > > probably going to look at things, but not add my signature. Not out of > > laziness, but in seeing that others are dealing with it as well and my > > signature is just more "noise" on the report. > > And as someone reviewing that report, it is *absolutely* not just noise. > It tells me that the mentors are engaged, and that are in tune with what > the podling is doing, and that the podling is listening to their mentors > are are learning the ropes. > > Podlings that have 100% mentor signoff indicate that everything is going > perfectly, and there's no reason for concern. > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your sign off. > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding meaningful comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself. For example, which gives you better info that I feel confident in Tamaya's board report. My check here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2014 or my comments in this thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tamaya-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOqetn8wkYuDNkTwkpKKOGzu%3Ds_cf4VMT5A9_e8mdpM6mOh-6Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E All the check does (from my point of view) is give someone a brief summary that things are looking good. The check mark doesn't imply any due diligence on the mentor's part. It's very misleading to see it that way. Take a look for example at the log4cxx2 podling's report. It has mentor sign off, but the contents are barely present. The only reason it has mentor sign off is because the mentor wrote the report, after I (as the shepherd) reminded the podling. > > --Rich > > > > -- > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Dec 30, 2014 10:27 AM, "John D. Ament" wrote: > > On Mon Dec 29 2014 at 9:50:49 AM Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > I don't particularly like that idea. For one, I know that if I were to > > see > > > 50%+ of mentors on a project I'm a mentor on sign off on the report, I'm > > > probably going to look at things, but not add my signature. Not out of > > > laziness, but in seeing that others are dealing with it as well and my > > > signature is just more "noise" on the report. > > > > And as someone reviewing that report, it is *absolutely* not just noise. > > It tells me that the mentors are engaged, and that are in tune with what > > the podling is doing, and that the podling is listening to their mentors > > are are learning the ropes. > > > > Podlings that have 100% mentor signoff indicate that everything is going > > perfectly, and there's no reason for concern. > > > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your sign off. > > > > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding meaningful > comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself. > > For example, which gives you better info that I feel confident in Tamaya's > board report. > > My check here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2014 > > or my comments in this thread: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tamaya-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOqetn8wkYuDNkTwkpKKOGzu%3Ds_cf4VMT5A9_e8mdpM6mOh-6Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > All the check does (from my point of view) is give someone a brief summary > that things are looking good. The check mark doesn't imply any due > diligence on the mentor's part. It's very misleading to see it that way. > Take a look for example at the log4cxx2 podling's report. It has mentor > sign off, but the contents are barely present. The only reason it has > mentor sign off is because the mentor wrote the report, after I (as the > shepherd) reminded the podling. > > I was referring to tlp pmc chairs reporting to the board.
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: > The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the > mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify > (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. I am skeptical that Apache policies will be applied evenly under such a regime. For example, release candidates routinely make it to the full IPMC vote with binary dependencies embedded in source. Regardless of intent, removing final review by the wider IPMC will have the effect of liberalizing the policy on bundled binary dependencies for those pTLPs who do not count any sticklers among their Mentors. Rather than change effective release policy for a minority through administrative laxity, the Board should grapple with the full implications of changing it explicitly for everyone. (Yes, that will turn a huge, gory fight considering liability, etc.) Atomizing the IPMC will also yield inconsistency in other areas where there is either confusion or honest disagreement among the Membership as to what our policies are, such as provenance documentation requirements for contributions arriving via Github, or whether PMC chairs are "special". Nevertheless, +1 to move forward with the "pTLP experiment" (whatever that means). Odds are that any given pTLP will work out OK, especially if they land one of our better Mentors. But when one messes up, maybe we'll get a clarifying post-mortem with the Board in the hot seat and the Incubator unavailable as a convenient scapegoat. No matter how much progress the Incubator makes, people will continue to hate on it because it's a teacher and front-line enforcer of contentious and frustratingly complex Foundation policies. I'm not sure that's a solvable problem, because it seems that The Apache Way inherently produces sprawling, incoherent policy and policy documentation. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
The problems that you cite were already cited long before (nearly a year) in my proposal to “blow the whole thing up” as you state: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal And we can keep spinning around the target, growing the “IPMC”, and trying to keep whatever “it” is together, but you will find like I have stated ad naseum that: 1. the documentation on *what* to do for incoming projects is already there and in good shape. Nothing prevents folks from continuing to work on it, even without an “IPMC” 2. the process on *what* to do for incoming projects is already there and in good shape. Nothing prevents folks from continuing to work on it, even without an “IPMC” 3. the main issue that keeps arising, related to mentoring, will keep arising if we keep growing this ethereal presence that’s the “IPMC”, instead of simply making projects under the review of the board monthly, quarterly, etc. The board doesn’t go AWOL. The board can’t b/c the checks and balances are in place to keep them around: the membership; the foundation; the reviewing process and the way the foundation has existed since even *before* the Incubator. And it’s within the board’s charter to be in this reviewing phase/entity that is really needed and that continues to appear and disappear within the IPMC. In addition all of those new great folks we are now unlike before adding to the IPMC can simply be part of e.g., ComDev, as folks who “get” the foundation, or simply be strong ASF members, etc., who can hang around on the incoming projects. An incoming project doesn’t have a person with experience reviewing Apache releases on the incoming committee? Let that be discussed and caught, and then adapted on the incoming proposal *to the board*. Yes there was a time that the Incubator didn’t exist, and *gasp* the foundation still ran fine. It seems to me there are always a set of folks that think the Incubator PMC needs to exist in order for the documentation, the process, and the *care* from the people who care about the things related to release management; legal help; community help, etc., to exist. To me, that’s ridiculous. That stuff will still exist. In fact, it can even exist in a concrete entity - have it be the ComDev PMC as I originally suggested in my proposal to, *gasp*, “blow the whole thing up”. And finally, I guess for those folks who think that PMCs should always be around, we should probably still have Jakarta, and other PMCs - heck let’s never have PMCs go away - I mean, we still have Java projects, right? Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 1:09 AM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off >On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes >wrote: >> ...It would be sad if this Incubator Community disappears in the >>proposed >> move of incubating project to be reporting directly to the ASF Board... > >With my board member hat on, you can count on a strong -1 from me on >that suggestion. I suspect I'm not the only board member with that >opinion, so if people actually think of making this happen it might be >worth polling the board first to avoid wasting time discussing that >option. > >Once again, IMO focusing on actual concrete problems like we started >listing at https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013 would >be much more productive than blowing the whole thing up in the hope >that it will somewhat re-materialize in a better form. > >-Bertrand > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework
I followed the thread and tried to stay away, because there's a lot of potential for noise. If the IPMC were to take a vote on the tinkerpop proposal today it would not pass. At the very least it's incomplete. Engaging in a conversation on this list to finalize it is, imho, not the most productive way of using everybody's time and it could get confusing. For that reason the best course of action is for you, the podling, to choose at least 3 mentors who you think would provide good guidance and mentorship. You want to grow a strong community relatively fast, graduate from incubation and get more familiar with the Apache Way (I assume those who suggested to you to become an ASF project understand the benefits well). You already have a few experienced ASF members who offered their help as mentors. Talk to David, you have an excellent champion now, ask him to help you choose your mentors. Then pester your mentors and ask them what you want to know. Make sure you understand what you sign up for by moving the project governance to ASF. Next step, finalize the proposal and only then continue this discussion. It'll be more targeted and things will go faster. My $0.02, Hadrian On 12/29/2014 03:30 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: Hello, My name is Marko A. Rodriguez and am a co-founder of TinkerPop (http://tinkerpop.com). There has been positive pressure on us (both internally and externally) to move TinkerPop to The Apache Foundation. This email contains our proposal and I, on behalf of TinkerPop, thank you for spending your time reading it. After catching up on the conversation, and reading a little bit about your project and community, I would be honored if you would consider my offer to be a Mentor for your project. --Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
Marvin, I completely agree with you - to sum it up - my take on your point that Apache has a lot of information and guidelines for new podlings that is somewhat inconsistently brought down to new generations and those after them of incoming projects. Have a mentor that’s a stickler for release candidates - you will see projects come out believing that is the end-all be-all for Apache (“gah, Apache is the communist release foundation!”). Have a mentor that is a stickler for diversity on incoming projects, podlings will come out believing there is some rule that a committee can’t have a majority of contributors from a single organization (“Ahh _that_ company is taking over an _Apache_ project! Gasp!”). Have a mentor that’s a stickler for adding anyone that drops by on the mailing list that says hi (ahem..ducks) you’ll have podlings coming in and new committees believing in low barriers to committership and PMCship. Regardless the above is the ethos of Apache and by and far, it will exist, IPMC or not. There is no reason that the current f_active(IPMC) = [some # less than 20] couldn’t simply still exist either in official committee form (its own; or on the ComDev PMC), and continue to do the same thing. It’s my belief that the genetic makeup of active IPMC members includes a few mentors cut from each of the important incoming new project areas that are important to pass down - legal, release review, community and participation, etc - and that we should as best as possible try and have a set of 3 that represents some nice representative cross section of those skills for the new projects. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from: 1. Making ASF members out of anyone that’s part of that active IPMC list that’s not already a member 2. Having those ASF members vote in new board members that represent their views and ethos (including themselves as new board members) 3. Having those board members be part of checks and bounds to *care* and review these projects part of our foundation Or some subset of the above. My point being - IPMC or not - the things you cite below as important will still exist, since this foundation and its people will, hopefully for the next 50+ years. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 8:03 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) > wrote: >> The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the >> mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify >> (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. > >I am skeptical that Apache policies will be applied evenly under such a >regime. For example, release candidates routinely make it to the full >IPMC >vote with binary dependencies embedded in source. Regardless of intent, >removing final review by the wider IPMC will have the effect of >liberalizing >the policy on bundled binary dependencies for those pTLPs who do not >count any >sticklers among their Mentors. > >Rather than change effective release policy for a minority through >administrative laxity, the Board should grapple with the full >implications of >changing it explicitly for everyone. (Yes, that will turn a huge, gory >fight >considering liability, etc.) > >Atomizing the IPMC will also yield inconsistency in other areas where >there is >either confusion or honest disagreement among the Membership as to what >our >policies are, such as provenance documentation requirements for >contributions >arriving via Github, or whether PMC chairs are "special". > >Nevertheless, +1 to move forward with the "pTLP experiment" (whatever that >means). Odds are that any given pTLP will work out OK, especially if they >land one of our better Mentors. But when one messes up, maybe we'll get a >clarifying post-mortem with the Board in the hot seat and the Incubator >unavailable as a convenient scapegoat. > >No matter how much progress the Incubator makes, people will continue to >hate >on it because it's a teacher and front-line enforcer of contentious and >frustratingly complex Foundation policies. I'm not sure that's a solvable >problem, because it seems that The Apache Way inherently produces >sprawling, >incoherent policy and policy documentation. > >Marvin Humph
Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
Hi Chris, On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: > ...http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal ... Thanks for this, this looks like a good definition of "the experiment". > ...1. the documentation on *what* to do for incoming projects is > already there and in good shape I disagree, to me http://incubator.apache.org/ needs a lot of work - it is way too verbose in many places for example, and mixes up best practices with policy. I don't see how shifting the responsibility to comdev would help. > ...2. the process on *what* to do for incoming projects is already > there and in good shape. Nothing prevents folks from continuing > to work on it, even without an “IPMC”... Ok but define "folks". Currently it's the active members of the IPMC, and IIUC your plan is to move this responsibility to the board, which is busy enough IMO. > ...3. the main issue that keeps arising, related to mentoring, will keep > arising if we keep growing this ethereal presence that’s the > “IPMC”... Removing inactive IPMC members is easy, like that's done for other PMCs. > ...In addition all of those new great folks we are now unlike before > adding to the IPMC can simply be part of e.g., ComDev, as folks > who “get” the foundation, or simply be strong ASF members, etc.,... Makes me think that the goal is to end up with comdev being the "folks" that you mention above. Adjusting the IPMC membership to people who are actually active would have the exact same effect then. > ...Yes there was a time that the Incubator didn’t exist, and *gasp* > the foundation still ran fine We didn't have 30-50 podlings and about 200 TLPs at the time. Some easy podlings need very little work, while troublesome ones might need lots of attention and time. > ...It seems to me there are always a set of folks that think the > Incubator PMC needs to exist in order for the documentation, > the process, and the *care* from the people who care about the > things related to release management; legal help; community help, > etc., to exist. To me, that’s ridiculous... Well, someone needs to do the work of maintaining http://incubator.apache.org/ for example. Moving that responsibility to the board sounds like a huge waste of those people's time - the board is all about delegation and that's a good thing. > ...And finally, I guess for those folks who think that PMCs should > always be around... Who are those folks exactly? Not me - I think the IPMC should stay around, that's it. Generalizing this into and "old farts never change their minds" discussion is not useful. I'm not against an experiment with 1-2 podlings based on http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal if people want that but I'm very skeptical of that as a general way of managing incoming projects. If those 1-2 podlings happen to be "easy" ones that will work of course, but with troublesome podlings that sounds to me like a huge waste of the board's energy. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework
Hello, Apologies for the noise on the list. We have a champion and Dave is working to select mentors he think are best for TinkerPop. After that, we will iterate on the proposal and the submit it for approval. Thank you, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Dec 30, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > I followed the thread and tried to stay away, because there's a lot of > potential for noise. > > If the IPMC were to take a vote on the tinkerpop proposal today it would not > pass. At the very least it's incomplete. Engaging in a conversation on this > list to finalize it is, imho, not the most productive way of using > everybody's time and it could get confusing. For that reason the best course > of action is for you, the podling, to choose at least 3 mentors who you think > would provide good guidance and mentorship. You want to grow a strong > community relatively fast, graduate from incubation and get more familiar > with the Apache Way (I assume those who suggested to you to become an ASF > project understand the benefits well). You already have a few experienced ASF > members who offered their help as mentors. Talk to David, you have an > excellent champion now, ask him to help you choose your mentors. Then pester > your mentors and ask them what you want to know. Make sure you understand > what you sign up for by moving the project governance to ASF. Next step, > finalize the proposal and only then continue this discussion. It'll be more > targeted and things will go faster. > > My $0.02, > Hadrian > > > > On 12/29/2014 03:30 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> >> On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> My name is Marko A. Rodriguez and am a co-founder of TinkerPop >>> (http://tinkerpop.com). There has been positive pressure on us (both >>> internally and externally) to move TinkerPop to The Apache Foundation. >>> This email contains our proposal and I, on behalf of TinkerPop, thank >>> you for spending your time reading it. >> >> >> After catching up on the conversation, and reading a little bit about your >> project and community, I would be honored if you would consider my offer to >> be a Mentor for your project. >> >> >> --Rich >> > > > - > 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: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework
On 30 December 2014 at 18:32, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > Hello, > > > It is and was not noise if you got something useful for the proposalwe have this list to discuss things. > > After that, we will iterate on the proposal and the submit it for approval. > Looking very much forward to read that. rgds jan i. > > Thank you, > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > > On Dec 30, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > > > I followed the thread and tried to stay away, because there's a lot of > potential for noise. > > > > If the IPMC were to take a vote on the tinkerpop proposal today it would > not pass. At the very least it's incomplete. Engaging in a conversation on > this list to finalize it is, imho, not the most productive way of using > everybody's time and it could get confusing. For that reason the best > course of action is for you, the podling, to choose at least 3 mentors who > you think would provide good guidance and mentorship. You want to grow a > strong community relatively fast, graduate from incubation and get more > familiar with the Apache Way (I assume those who suggested to you to become > an ASF project understand the benefits well). You already have a few > experienced ASF members who offered their help as mentors. Talk to David, > you have an excellent champion now, ask him to help you choose your > mentors. Then pester your mentors and ask them what you want to know. Make > sure you understand what you sign up for by moving the project governance > to ASF. Next step, finalize the proposal and only then continue this > discussion. It'll be more targeted and things will go faster. > > > > My $0.02, > > Hadrian > > > > > > > > On 12/29/2014 03:30 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> My name is Marko A. Rodriguez and am a co-founder of TinkerPop > >>> (http://tinkerpop.com). There has been positive pressure on us (both > >>> internally and externally) to move TinkerPop to The Apache Foundation. > >>> This email contains our proposal and I, on behalf of TinkerPop, thank > >>> you for spending your time reading it. > >> > >> > >> After catching up on the conversation, and reading a little bit about > your project and community, I would be honored if you would consider my > offer to be a Mentor for your project. > >> > >> > >> --Rich > >> > > > > > > - > > 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: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
Hi Bertrand, -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off >Hi Chris, > >On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) > wrote: >> ...http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal ... > >Thanks for this, this looks like a good definition of "the experiment". Thanks. This has been in existence FYI for many years, so please excuse my skepticism this is the first time folks have seen it. > >> ...1. the documentation on *what* to do for incoming projects is >> already there and in good shape > >I disagree, to me http://incubator.apache.org/ needs a lot of work - >it is way too verbose in many places for example, and mixes up best >practices with policy. I don't see how shifting the responsibility to >comdev would help. Great, so like software, it’s a living, breathing thing. Is it perfect, no? Is it “releasable” and has it been “delivered”? Yes? Does it need a 3.0? A 4.0? Sure. It will get it. However it’s good enough for incoming projects, along with mentors and people on those projects who “get” Apache to use, cite, and interpret. > >> ...2. the process on *what* to do for incoming projects is already >> there and in good shape. Nothing prevents folks from continuing >> to work on it, even without an “IPMC”... > >Ok but define "folks". > >Currently it's the active members of the IPMC, and IIUC your plan is >to move this responsibility to the board, which is busy enough IMO. Nope. My plan is to move the responsibility to a variety of committees and people, doing away with the meta committee that is the IPMC. Please review the specific table I’ve listed at the bottom of the proposal. > >>[..snip..] > >> ...Yes there was a time that the Incubator didn’t exist, and *gasp* >> the foundation still ran fine > >We didn't have 30-50 podlings and about 200 TLPs at the time. > >Some easy podlings need very little work, while troublesome ones might >need lots of attention and time. What’s new? The board regularly reviews ~150 TLPs - and what’s funnier - is that the board is also *already* responsible for reviewing those 200 TLPs - the board is responsible for reviewing the IPMC report which includes all of those “sub/meta/etc.” reports from the podlings. Sure, you can argue that the IPMC is responsible for “vetting” that, but I again cite that vetting is what keeps up > >> ...It seems to me there are always a set of folks that think the >> Incubator PMC needs to exist in order for the documentation, >> the process, and the *care* from the people who care about the >> things related to release management; legal help; community help, >> etc., to exist. To me, that’s ridiculous... > >Well, someone needs to do the work of maintaining >http://incubator.apache.org/ for example. > >Moving that responsibility to the board sounds like a huge waste of >those people's time - the board is all about delegation and that's a >good thing. Please read the table at the bottom of the wiki page. > >> ...And finally, I guess for those folks who think that PMCs should >> always be around... > >Who are those folks exactly? >Not me - I think the IPMC should stay around, that's it. Generalizing >this into and "old farts never change their minds" discussion is not >useful. And what’s also not useful is acting like a proposal that’s existed for years is something new - it’s been discussed - a simple Google search yielded hundreds of emails no the topic. > >I'm not against an experiment with 1-2 podlings based on >http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal if >people want that but I'm very skeptical of that as a general way of >managing incoming projects. If those 1-2 podlings happen to be "easy" >ones that will work of course, but with troublesome podlings that >sounds to me like a huge waste of the board's energy. It’s not just the board - again please see the table I’ve listed at the bottom of the wiki. What my proposal does is remove the thinly veiled “IPMC” as the “catch all” which in fact doesn’t catch all. On its 150+ person committee - I supposed there are < 20 active people who keep showing up. I have statistics to prove it (see my active mentors tool I’ve shown) - I have experience having mentored many podlings to prove it; and the mailing threads prove it. So, promote those 20 people to ComDev PMC, promote them to ASF members, promote them however, my guess is that they *care* about the foundation; we want these people helping new projects, and they will continue to help those new projects - along with the board - along with everyone else. Cheers, Chris - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: > ...what’s also not useful is acting like a proposal that’s existed for > years is something new - it’s been discussed - a simple Google search > yielded hundreds of emails no the topic Besides taking a bit of time to read, hundreds of emails don't allow people reading this thread to converge on a single view of what "the experiment" is, so thanks for pointing out http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal , that's what I was missing. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your sign off. > > > > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding meaningful > comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself. > > For example, which gives you better info that I feel confident in Tamaya's > board report. > > My check here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2014 > > or my comments in this thread: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tamaya-dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOqetn8wkYuDNkTwkpKKOGzu%3Ds_cf4VMT5A9_e8mdpM6mOh-6Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > All the check does (from my point of view) is give someone a brief summary > that things are looking good. The check mark doesn't imply any due > diligence on the mentor's part. It's very misleading to see it that way. > Take a look for example at the log4cxx2 podling's report. It has mentor > sign off, but the contents are barely present. The only reason it has > mentor sign off is because the mentor wrote the report, after I (as the > shepherd) reminded the podling. > John, Are you seriously suggesting that the board should be delving into all the incubator mailing lists to determine whether you are paying attention to your mentoree groups? The check-box is the concise way that you indicate that the activity on the mailing lists is happening. There is a known defect with checkboxes in that they can be ticked without mentoring activity behind them, but that doesn't mean that we should introduce a new failure mechanism where there is good activity but no tick box. Yes, the tick box is supposed to be an echo. It is a redundant summarization. And it is very helpful because all the tick boxes are in one place for easier review.
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
I plan to: 1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. Can't expect IRB approval without it. 2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details to worry over. Any suggestions about where to put it? There in no board wiki. Is there? 3. Submit a board resolution when I think there is a consensus. On Dec 30, 2014 12:24 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Marvin, I completely agree with you - to sum it up - my take on your point > that Apache has a lot of information and guidelines for new podlings > that is somewhat inconsistently brought down to new generations and > those after them of incoming projects. Have a mentor that’s a stickler > for release candidates - you will see projects come out believing that > is the end-all be-all for Apache (“gah, Apache is the communist release > foundation!”). Have a mentor that is a stickler for diversity on incoming > projects, podlings will come out believing there is some rule that a > committee can’t have a majority of contributors from a single organization > (“Ahh _that_ company is taking over an _Apache_ project! Gasp!”). Have > a mentor that’s a stickler for adding anyone that drops by on the mailing > list that says hi (ahem..ducks) you’ll have podlings coming in and new > committees believing in low barriers to committership and PMCship. > > Regardless the above is the ethos of Apache and by and far, it will exist, > IPMC or not. There is no reason that the current f_active(IPMC) = [some > # less than 20] couldn’t simply still exist either in official committee > form (its own; or on the ComDev PMC), and continue to do the same thing. > It’s my belief that the genetic makeup of active IPMC members includes > a few mentors cut from each of the important incoming new project areas > that are important to pass down - legal, release review, community and > participation, etc - and that we should as best as possible try and > have a set of 3 that represents some nice representative cross section of > those skills for the new projects. > > Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from: > > 1. Making ASF members out of anyone that’s part of that active IPMC > list that’s not already a member > 2. Having those ASF members vote in new board members that represent > their views and ethos (including themselves as new board members) > 3. Having those board members be part of checks and bounds to *care* > and review these projects part of our foundation > > Or some subset of the above. > > My point being - IPMC or not - the things you cite below as important > will still exist, since this foundation and its people will, hopefully > for the next 50+ years. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Chief Architect > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++ > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++ > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Marvin Humphrey > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 8:03 AM > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" > Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP > > >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) > > wrote: > >> The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the > >> mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify > >> (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. > > > >I am skeptical that Apache policies will be applied evenly under such a > >regime. For example, release candidates routinely make it to the full > >IPMC > >vote with binary dependencies embedded in source. Regardless of intent, > >removing final review by the wider IPMC will have the effect of > >liberalizing > >the policy on bundled binary dependencies for those pTLPs who do not > >count any > >sticklers among their Mentors. > > > >Rather than change effective release policy for a minority through > >administrative laxity, the Board should grapple with the full > >implications of > >changing it explicitly for everyone. (Yes, that will turn a huge, gory > >fight > >considering liability, etc.) > > > >Atomizing the IPMC will also yield inconsistency in other areas where > >there is > >either confusion or honest disagreement among the Membership as to what > >our > >policies are, such as provenance documentation requirements for > >contributions > >arriving via Github, or whether PMC chairs are "special". > > > >Nevertheless, +1 to move forward with the "pTLP experiment" (whatever that > >means)
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
Thanks Benson - I would suggest using the Incubator wiki if you need one (but the point about there not being a Board wiki - interesting, would be nice to have one). At the end of the day the resolution would look like a typical board resolution after Incubator graduation e.g., “Create Apache X”, so it would be summarized as you mention in point #3 below. Cheers and good luck. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM To: "general@incubator apache. org" Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >I plan to: > >1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. Can't >expect IRB approval without it. > >2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details >to >worry over. Any suggestions about where to put it? There in no board wiki. >Is there? > >3. Submit a board resolution when I think there is a consensus. >On Dec 30, 2014 12:24 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" < >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > >> Marvin, I completely agree with you - to sum it up - my take on your >>point >> that Apache has a lot of information and guidelines for new podlings >> that is somewhat inconsistently brought down to new generations and >> those after them of incoming projects. Have a mentor that’s a stickler >> for release candidates - you will see projects come out believing that >> is the end-all be-all for Apache (“gah, Apache is the communist release >> foundation!”). Have a mentor that is a stickler for diversity on >>incoming >> projects, podlings will come out believing there is some rule that a >> committee can’t have a majority of contributors from a single >>organization >> (“Ahh _that_ company is taking over an _Apache_ project! Gasp!”). Have >> a mentor that’s a stickler for adding anyone that drops by on the >>mailing >> list that says hi (ahem..ducks) you’ll have podlings coming in and new >> committees believing in low barriers to committership and PMCship. >> >> Regardless the above is the ethos of Apache and by and far, it will >>exist, >> IPMC or not. There is no reason that the current f_active(IPMC) = [some >> # less than 20] couldn’t simply still exist either in official committee >> form (its own; or on the ComDev PMC), and continue to do the same thing. >> It’s my belief that the genetic makeup of active IPMC members includes >> a few mentors cut from each of the important incoming new project areas >> that are important to pass down - legal, release review, community and >> participation, etc - and that we should as best as possible try and >> have a set of 3 that represents some nice representative cross section >>of >> those skills for the new projects. >> >> Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from: >> >> 1. Making ASF members out of anyone that’s part of that active IPMC >> list that’s not already a member >> 2. Having those ASF members vote in new board members that represent >> their views and ethos (including themselves as new board members) >> 3. Having those board members be part of checks and bounds to *care* >> and review these projects part of our foundation >> >> Or some subset of the above. >> >> My point being - IPMC or not - the things you cite below as important >> will still exist, since this foundation and its people will, hopefully >> for the next 50+ years. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> >> ++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Chief Architect >> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++ >> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> ++ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Marvin Humphrey >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" >> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 8:03 AM >> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" >> Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >> >> >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) >> > wrote: >> >> The structure would still
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: > Thanks Benson - I would suggest using the Incubator wiki if you > need one (but the point about there not being a Board wiki - interesting, > would be nice to have one). > > At the end of the day the resolution would look like a typical board > resolution after Incubator graduation e.g., “Create Apache X”, so > it would be summarized as you mention in point #3 below. Chris, I agree that the simplest model of (p)TLP hasn't much of a (p): it would be a normal resolution, and we'll be off to the races. I plan, if the Nifi group is game, to send mail to the board offering that option, and then back off to a more complex proposal if the board wants more (p) -- like PR restrictions, or some sort of policy on how the initial podling group gets incorporated into the PMC. --benson > > Cheers and good luck. > > Cheers, > Chris > > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Chief Architect > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++ > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++ > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Benson Margulies > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM > To: "general@incubator apache. org" > Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP > >>I plan to: >> >>1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. Can't >>expect IRB approval without it. >> >>2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details >>to >>worry over. Any suggestions about where to put it? There in no board wiki. >>Is there? >> >>3. Submit a board resolution when I think there is a consensus. >>On Dec 30, 2014 12:24 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" < >>chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >> >>> Marvin, I completely agree with you - to sum it up - my take on your >>>point >>> that Apache has a lot of information and guidelines for new podlings >>> that is somewhat inconsistently brought down to new generations and >>> those after them of incoming projects. Have a mentor that’s a stickler >>> for release candidates - you will see projects come out believing that >>> is the end-all be-all for Apache (“gah, Apache is the communist release >>> foundation!”). Have a mentor that is a stickler for diversity on >>>incoming >>> projects, podlings will come out believing there is some rule that a >>> committee can’t have a majority of contributors from a single >>>organization >>> (“Ahh _that_ company is taking over an _Apache_ project! Gasp!”). Have >>> a mentor that’s a stickler for adding anyone that drops by on the >>>mailing >>> list that says hi (ahem..ducks) you’ll have podlings coming in and new >>> committees believing in low barriers to committership and PMCship. >>> >>> Regardless the above is the ethos of Apache and by and far, it will >>>exist, >>> IPMC or not. There is no reason that the current f_active(IPMC) = [some >>> # less than 20] couldn’t simply still exist either in official committee >>> form (its own; or on the ComDev PMC), and continue to do the same thing. >>> It’s my belief that the genetic makeup of active IPMC members includes >>> a few mentors cut from each of the important incoming new project areas >>> that are important to pass down - legal, release review, community and >>> participation, etc - and that we should as best as possible try and >>> have a set of 3 that represents some nice representative cross section >>>of >>> those skills for the new projects. >>> >>> Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from: >>> >>> 1. Making ASF members out of anyone that’s part of that active IPMC >>> list that’s not already a member >>> 2. Having those ASF members vote in new board members that represent >>> their views and ethos (including themselves as new board members) >>> 3. Having those board members be part of checks and bounds to *care* >>> and review these projects part of our foundation >>> >>> Or some subset of the above. >>> >>> My point being - IPMC or not - the things you cite below as important >>> will still exist, since this foundation and its people will, hopefully >>> for the next 50+ years. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> ++ >>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >>> Chief Architect >>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov >>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >>> +
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
+1 thanks Benson, totally agree. ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) > wrote: >> Thanks Benson - I would suggest using the Incubator wiki if you >> need one (but the point about there not being a Board wiki - >>interesting, >> would be nice to have one). >> >> At the end of the day the resolution would look like a typical board >> resolution after Incubator graduation e.g., “Create Apache X”, so >> it would be summarized as you mention in point #3 below. > >Chris, > >I agree that the simplest model of (p)TLP hasn't much of a (p): it >would be a normal resolution, and we'll be off to the races. I plan, >if the Nifi group is game, to send mail to the board offering that >option, and then back off to a more complex proposal if the board >wants more (p) -- like PR restrictions, or some sort of policy on how >the initial podling group gets incorporated into the PMC. > >--benson > > >> >> Cheers and good luck. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> ++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Chief Architect >> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++ >> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> ++ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Benson Margulies >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" >> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM >> To: "general@incubator apache. org" >> Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >> >>>I plan to: >>> >>>1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. >>>Can't >>>expect IRB approval without it. >>> >>>2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details >>>to >>>worry over. Any suggestions about where to put it? There in no board >>>wiki. >>>Is there? >>> >>>3. Submit a board resolution when I think there is a consensus. >>>On Dec 30, 2014 12:24 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" < >>>chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> Marvin, I completely agree with you - to sum it up - my take on your point that Apache has a lot of information and guidelines for new podlings that is somewhat inconsistently brought down to new generations and those after them of incoming projects. Have a mentor that’s a stickler for release candidates - you will see projects come out believing that is the end-all be-all for Apache (“gah, Apache is the communist release foundation!”). Have a mentor that is a stickler for diversity on incoming projects, podlings will come out believing there is some rule that a committee can’t have a majority of contributors from a single organization (“Ahh _that_ company is taking over an _Apache_ project! Gasp!”). Have a mentor that’s a stickler for adding anyone that drops by on the mailing list that says hi (ahem..ducks) you’ll have podlings coming in and new committees believing in low barriers to committership and PMCship. Regardless the above is the ethos of Apache and by and far, it will exist, IPMC or not. There is no reason that the current f_active(IPMC) = [some # less than 20] couldn’t simply still exist either in official committee form (its own; or on the ComDev PMC), and continue to do the same thing. It’s my belief that the genetic makeup of active IPMC members includes a few mentors cut from each of the important incoming new project areas that are important to pass down - legal, release review, community and participation, etc - and that we should as best as possible try and have a set of 3 that represents some nice representative cross section of those skills for the new projects. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from: 1. Making ASF members
RE: Running an experiment with pTLP
I don't want to fan flames or point fingers, but at the same time I need to say this. Please read it as being intended to be constructive... This whole pTLP thing is not new. We conducted an experiment like the one proposed below some time ago. The outcome of that experiment was supposed to be a proposal to the board from the IPMC about how to create and manage pTLP's at scale. At the start of that experiment I (as Champion) spent a long time collating the various views on the proposal. I provided this as summary email at the start of the podlings life. I believed this was a really good start for whoever was going to turn it into a full proposal. It might be useful here also. NOTE - I'm not naming the podling or mentors to minimize the chance of people feeling that I'm finger pointing in the following paragraphs - there are plenty of folks around who will have that email in their archives. Unfortunately the experiment did not go well. No proposal was received and, more importantly, as champion (but not a mentor) for the project in question I was asked to step in on three separate occasion. This was despite, or perhaps because of, there being some very old hands in the podling committer list. My point today is just the same as it was when this was discussed the first time around. This proposal simply moves the problem (projects lacking in appropriate mentorship) to someone else's doorstep. It does not solve the problem itself. To be clear, I have no intention of voting against the proposed experiment. I do want to see the experiment take place (just as I did the first time around) but we need to ensure we are not simply moving the oversight role - that is not the problem that needs solving. Ross -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:39 AM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > ...Given that I'll be mentoring Zeppelin, I'd love to use that as a guinea > pig. > Provided, that I'd have some level of collaboration from the board I don't have a clear idea of what the suggested experiment means, it looks like that info is scattered around several threads that I have lost track of. A brief definition on a wiki page would help make sure everybody has the same view of what you are suggesting. -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
[ANNOUNCE] Hyunsik Choi joins the IPMC
Hi! sorry for not sending this out sooner -- holidays got the best of me ;-) I am really happy to welcome an ASF member Hyunsik Choi, who has recently voluteered to join the Incubator PMC! Great to have you on board, Hyunsik! Please make sure to subscribe to the IPMC MLs. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
+1 to everything Ross said below and I monitored that experiment as well but was unaware of the 3 incidents, etc. As for pTLPs and shifting mentorship, etc., I trust Ross’s judgement but think we need more data on this across a number of projects before we know definitively what’s the cause of what, etc. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 12:07 PM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: RE: Running an experiment with pTLP >I don't want to fan flames or point fingers, but at the same time I need >to say this. Please read it as being intended to be constructive... > >This whole pTLP thing is not new. We conducted an experiment like the one >proposed below some time ago. The outcome of that experiment was supposed >to be a proposal to the board from the IPMC about how to create and >manage pTLP's at scale. > >At the start of that experiment I (as Champion) spent a long time >collating the various views on the proposal. I provided this as summary >email at the start of the podlings life. I believed this was a really >good start for whoever was going to turn it into a full proposal. It >might be useful here also. NOTE - I'm not naming the podling or mentors >to minimize the chance of people feeling that I'm finger pointing in the >following paragraphs - there are plenty of folks around who will have >that email in their archives. > >Unfortunately the experiment did not go well. > >No proposal was received and, more importantly, as champion (but not a >mentor) for the project in question I was asked to step in on three >separate occasion. This was despite, or perhaps because of, there being >some very old hands in the podling committer list. > >My point today is just the same as it was when this was discussed the >first time around. This proposal simply moves the problem (projects >lacking in appropriate mentorship) to someone else's doorstep. It does >not solve the problem itself. > >To be clear, I have no intention of voting against the proposed >experiment. I do want to see the experiment take place (just as I did the >first time around) but we need to ensure we are not simply moving the >oversight role - that is not the problem that needs solving. > >Ross > >-Original Message- >From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] >Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:39 AM >To: Incubator General >Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP > >On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> ...Given that I'll be mentoring Zeppelin, I'd love to use that as a >>guinea pig. >> Provided, that I'd have some level of collaboration from the board > >I don't have a clear idea of what the suggested experiment means, it >looks like that info is scattered around several threads that I have lost >track of. A brief definition on a wiki page would help make sure >everybody has the same view of what you are suggesting. > >-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: Running an experiment with pTLP
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: > +1 to everything Ross said below and I monitored that experiment > as well but was unaware of the 3 incidents, etc. > > As for pTLPs and shifting mentorship, etc., I trust Ross’s judgement > but think we need more data on this across a number of projects > before we know definitively what’s the cause of what, etc. If I was 'in the room' for the last time around, I seem to have forgotten. If I volunteered to write something, gosh I'm sorry and please do call me out here. Meanwhile: I think that there's some complexity here: At one extreme, consider 5 members with a demonstrable track record on IP issues and supervision who want to launch a new project (for example, a proposed VP who has been a success as a project VP on some other project(s)). Regardless of anything else, I suspect that they could go to the board, propose to launch a TLP directly, and have a pretty good chance of the board approving it. That's not really what pTLP is about, though. pTLP says, 'here we have some people who are willing to serve as the supervision structure of a new TLP but expect to fade away; they aren't necessarily planning to be write any code. They are members, but, hmm, members come in all sorts of different levels of experience with the issues faced by new projects." With all respect to ChrisM on the subject of letting the IPMC itself fade away, I read Ross' statement as pointing out that this situation seems to need some work done that the board doesn't want to do for itself. The board might want, gee, some committee, to help vet proposals, and perhaps to help keep an eye on them once they are running. That's what I meant by wondering 'how much (p) does the board want?' (Aside, as the number of projects grows and grows, it seems to me that the board might need some help supervising all the regular projects.) This brings me back to my idea of a wiki page. If the board is looking for a 'pTLP' to be more self-governing than a 'podling' but still have the IPMC accept some sort of responsibility for it, we need to write down the boundaries as part of proposing to the board. If NiFi wants to try this, I'm still happy to write the 'simple' proposal to the board, and wait upon the board's desires. If the board members in this thread feel that writing the simple proposal is a waste of time and energy, I won't write it. None of this stops the IPMC itself from shifting policy, experimentally, to require Mentors to act as PPMC members. I think I've used my quote of characters for the year on this subject. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > If NiFi wants to try this, I'm still happy to write the 'simple' > proposal to the board, and wait upon the board's desires. If the board > members in this thread feel that writing the simple proposal is a > waste of time and energy, I won't write it. None of this stops the > IPMC itself from shifting policy, experimentally, to require Mentors > to act as PPMC members. > > I think I've used my quote of characters for the year on this subject. Speaking of which: given that there appears to be way more background on this plus the fact that my tenure as a Chair is almost up I think it would be best for more experienced folks to run with this. Sorry for the noise -- I just didn't realize the size of the can of worms I was opening with my naive suggestion. Benson, Chris, Rich, please don't mind me guys -- all the projects mentioned on this list would do great. With Zeppelin, at this point I'll be proceeding in the normal way to establish the poddling. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 1:26:31 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your sign > off. > > > > > > > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding > meaningful > > comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself. > > > > For example, which gives you better info that I feel confident in > Tamaya's > > board report. > > > > My check here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2014 > > > > or my comments in this thread: > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tamaya- > dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOqetn8wkYuDNkTwkpKKOGzu%3Ds_cf4VMT5A9_e8mdpM6mOh-6Q% > 40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > All the check does (from my point of view) is give someone a brief > summary > > that things are looking good. The check mark doesn't imply any due > > diligence on the mentor's part. It's very misleading to see it that way. > > Take a look for example at the log4cxx2 podling's report. It has mentor > > sign off, but the contents are barely present. The only reason it has > > mentor sign off is because the mentor wrote the report, after I (as the > > shepherd) reminded the podling. > > > > John, > > Are you seriously suggesting that the board should be delving into all the > incubator mailing lists to determine whether you are paying attention to > your mentoree groups? > No, not in the slightest. But someone needs to look at it. Our current notion of a board report is completely on the honour system. It doesn't safeguard from the chance (which from what I can tell is more often the case) of a mentor writing and signing a report saying it's good to go. You can see some examples of this effect here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4cxx-dev/201412.mbox/%3C1418063938.3890690.200338789.1D0EE7B3%40webmail.messagingengine.com%3E There are also cases where there are clear issues w/ the podling but aren't getting communicated properly on the report (or maybe just oversight?) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ripple-dev/201412.mbox/%3CBY2PR03MB490FFD83B71E97C269A12DF99660%40BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com%3E My point is that just because there's a checkbox checked doesn't mean there's issues. Maybe what would help is to have, during shepherd perhaps, some coaxing in to putting more into the issues for the IPMC/board section. Maybe it's more of a "don't hesitate to put something in that area" thing that needs to happen. John > > The check-box is the concise way that you indicate that the activity on the > mailing lists is happening. There is a known defect with checkboxes in > that they can be ticked without mentoring activity behind them, but that > doesn't mean that we should introduce a new failure mechanism where there > is good activity but no tick box. > > Yes, the tick box is supposed to be an echo. It is a redundant > summarization. And it is very helpful because all the tick boxes are in > one place for easier review. >
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > I'd like to look at this through a lens of failure analysis. How do > podlings fail? I see two main patterns. > > 1. Failure to build a community. These are the podlings that we find > adrift in space with the lights on but no one home on the mailing > list. > > 2. Failure to build an _Apache_ community. These are the podlings that > JimJag was referring to in another thread; they are here, perhaps, for > the brand, perhaps launched/dumped here by a commercial enterprise. > They have people, they make releases, but there's an empty resonant > cavity where the Apache Way is supposed to be. > > We observe missing mentors in both cases, but I claim that it's only a > serious problem in the second case. In the first case, the problem > isn't lack of supervision. > > Here is where the 'Mentors in the Project' (whether directly reporting > to the board or not) leaps up and looks like a great idea to me. The > whole goal of incubation is to run an Apache project on training > wheels. How does an Apache project run? WIth a chair and PMC members > supervising it and _reporting to the board_. The proposal, as I see > it, is to tell the champion and other mentors that they, and not the > entire IPMC in some nebulous fashion, are the PMC in the PPMC. By the > time the podling graduates, their need to have expanded themselves to > a larger group. > > The board may choose to keep the IPMC around to organize and support > this process. The board may choose to continue to ask the IPMC to add > an extra layer of supervision. But the heart of the proposal is to > insist that every podling be nucleated around at least three people > who have the experience to operate as a PMC and have volunteered for > the responsibility. I really like what you're saying. How can we make it a reality? Petition the board? Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Incubator report sign-off
John, Actually John I disagree with one of your examples (Ripple). This is actually a case where things have gone as they would expect. The mail you link to is from me. I had previously made the IPMC aware of the issue prior to that email on the mailing list. I was asked if I was undertaking to fix it (I replied yes and requested the podling added me as a mentor in order to do so). The podling report indicated that getting a release out was a focus "No release made as yet, this will be the first item to recieve attention." The report does not need more detail than that since the IPMC had already been made aware that there was a problem, that it had been spotted and that the community and mentors indicated that they were to address it. Finally, if you review the shepherds notes from that report they acknowledge the concern and the fact that there was activity to address it. Ripple still has not addressed the issue raised those emails. Therefore it will not graduate until it does. The email you link to makes this perfectly clear. This is, in my opinion, exactly what should be happening. We provide oversight to ensure project acts as an Apache project. If it does so we graduate it, if it doesn't we retire it. I do agree with the overall intention of your mail, but it seems I disagree on what adequate oversight is. Ross -Original Message- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:47 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 1:26:31 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament > > wrote: > > > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your > > > sign > off. > > > > > > > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding > meaningful > > comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself. > > > > For example, which gives you better info that I feel confident in > Tamaya's > > board report. > > > > My check here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2014 > > > > or my comments in this thread: > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tamaya- > dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOqetn8wkYuDNkTwkpKKOGzu%3Ds_cf4VMT5A9_e8mdpM6mOh- > 6Q% > 40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > All the check does (from my point of view) is give someone a brief > summary > > that things are looking good. The check mark doesn't imply any due > > diligence on the mentor's part. It's very misleading to see it that way. > > Take a look for example at the log4cxx2 podling's report. It has > > mentor sign off, but the contents are barely present. The only > > reason it has mentor sign off is because the mentor wrote the > > report, after I (as the > > shepherd) reminded the podling. > > > > John, > > Are you seriously suggesting that the board should be delving into all > the incubator mailing lists to determine whether you are paying > attention to your mentoree groups? > No, not in the slightest. But someone needs to look at it. Our current notion of a board report is completely on the honour system. It doesn't safeguard from the chance (which from what I can tell is more often the case) of a mentor writing and signing a report saying it's good to go. You can see some examples of this effect here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4cxx-dev/201412.mbox/%3C1418063938.3890690.200338789.1D0EE7B3%40webmail.messagingengine.com%3E There are also cases where there are clear issues w/ the podling but aren't getting communicated properly on the report (or maybe just oversight?) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ripple-dev/201412.mbox/%3CBY2PR03MB490FFD83B71E97C269A12DF99660%40BY2PR03MB490.namprd03.prod.outlook.com%3E My point is that just because there's a checkbox checked doesn't mean there's issues. Maybe what would help is to have, during shepherd perhaps, some coaxing in to putting more into the issues for the IPMC/board section. Maybe it's more of a "don't hesitate to put something in that area" thing that needs to happen. John > > The check-box is the concise way that you indicate that the activity > on the mailing lists is happening. There is a known defect with > checkboxes in that they can be ticked without mentoring activity > behind them, but that doesn't mean that we should introduce a new > failure mechanism where there is good activity but no tick box. > > Yes, the tick box is supposed to be an echo. It is a redundant > summarization. And it is very helpful because all the tick boxes are > in one place for easier review. >
Re: Incubator report sign-off
Ross, I think we're actually on the same page. My point with ripple was not so much that it wasn't bringing it to anyone's attention (in fact the opposite, it's plastered all over the report) but more that a simple checkbox doesn't mean everything's great. John On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 10:59:33 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > John, > > Actually John I disagree with one of your examples (Ripple). This is > actually a case where things have gone as they would expect. > > The mail you link to is from me. I had previously made the IPMC aware of > the issue prior to that email on the mailing list. I was asked if I was > undertaking to fix it (I replied yes and requested the podling added me as > a mentor in order to do so). The podling report indicated that getting a > release out was a focus "No release made as yet, this will be the first > item to recieve attention." > > The report does not need more detail than that since the IPMC had already > been made aware that there was a problem, that it had been spotted and that > the community and mentors indicated that they were to address it. > > Finally, if you review the shepherds notes from that report they > acknowledge the concern and the fact that there was activity to address it. > > Ripple still has not addressed the issue raised those emails. Therefore it > will not graduate until it does. The email you link to makes this perfectly > clear. > > This is, in my opinion, exactly what should be happening. We provide > oversight to ensure project acts as an Apache project. If it does so we > graduate it, if it doesn't we retire it. > > I do agree with the overall intention of your mail, but it seems I > disagree on what adequate oversight is. > > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:47 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off > > On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 1:26:31 PM Ted Dunning > wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your > > > > sign > > off. > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding > > meaningful > > > comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself. > > > > > > For example, which gives you better info that I feel confident in > > Tamaya's > > > board report. > > > > > > My check here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2014 > > > > > > or my comments in this thread: > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tamaya- > > dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOqetn8wkYuDNkTwkpKKOGzu%3Ds_cf4VMT5A9_e8mdpM6mOh- > > 6Q% > > 40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > All the check does (from my point of view) is give someone a brief > > summary > > > that things are looking good. The check mark doesn't imply any due > > > diligence on the mentor's part. It's very misleading to see it that > way. > > > Take a look for example at the log4cxx2 podling's report. It has > > > mentor sign off, but the contents are barely present. The only > > > reason it has mentor sign off is because the mentor wrote the > > > report, after I (as the > > > shepherd) reminded the podling. > > > > > > > John, > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that the board should be delving into all > > the incubator mailing lists to determine whether you are paying > > attention to your mentoree groups? > > > > No, not in the slightest. But someone needs to look at it. Our current > notion of a board report is completely on the honour system. It doesn't > safeguard from the chance (which from what I can tell is more often the > case) of a mentor writing and signing a report saying it's good to go. > > You can see some examples of this effect here: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4cxx- > dev/201412.mbox/%3C1418063938.3890690.200338789.1D0EE7B3% > 40webmail.messagingengine.com%3E > > There are also cases where there are clear issues w/ the podling but > aren't getting communicated properly on the report (or maybe just > oversight?) > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ripple- > dev/201412.mbox/%3CBY2PR03MB490FFD83B71E97C269A12DF99660%40BY2PR03MB490. > namprd03.prod.outlook.com%3E > > My point is that just because there's a checkbox checked doesn't mean > there's issues. Maybe what would help is to have, during shepherd perhaps, > some coaxing in to putting more into the issues for the IPMC/board section. > > Maybe it's more of a "don't hesitate to put something in that area" thing > that needs to happen. > > John > > > > > > The check-box is the concise way that you indicate that the activity > > on the mailing lists is happening. There is a known defect with > > checkboxes in that they can be ticked without mentoring activity > > behind them, but that doesn't mean that we should introduce a new > > failure mechanism where there is g
RE: Incubator report sign-off
:-) Yes, it is shocking that the Ripple project had a number of signed off reports while inappropriate releases were being made. This problem only came to light because the community was considering retirement and some of my day job colleagues wanted me to look at it. In other words, I have a vested interest in seeing if things can be fixed, so I stepped up to see if they can. This is at the root of my proposal to *expect* mentors to have a vested interest in the success of a project. Ross -Original Message- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:05 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off Ross, I think we're actually on the same page. My point with ripple was not so much that it wasn't bringing it to anyone's attention (in fact the opposite, it's plastered all over the report) but more that a simple checkbox doesn't mean everything's great. John On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 10:59:33 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > John, > > Actually John I disagree with one of your examples (Ripple). This is > actually a case where things have gone as they would expect. > > The mail you link to is from me. I had previously made the IPMC aware > of the issue prior to that email on the mailing list. I was asked if I > was undertaking to fix it (I replied yes and requested the podling > added me as a mentor in order to do so). The podling report indicated > that getting a release out was a focus "No release made as yet, this > will be the first item to recieve attention." > > The report does not need more detail than that since the IPMC had > already been made aware that there was a problem, that it had been > spotted and that the community and mentors indicated that they were to > address it. > > Finally, if you review the shepherds notes from that report they > acknowledge the concern and the fact that there was activity to address it. > > Ripple still has not addressed the issue raised those emails. > Therefore it will not graduate until it does. The email you link to > makes this perfectly clear. > > This is, in my opinion, exactly what should be happening. We provide > oversight to ensure project acts as an Apache project. If it does so > we graduate it, if it doesn't we retire it. > > I do agree with the overall intention of your mail, but it seems I > disagree on what adequate oversight is. > > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:47 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off > > On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 1:26:31 PM Ted Dunning > wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your > > > > sign > > off. > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding > > meaningful > > > comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself. > > > > > > For example, which gives you better info that I feel confident in > > Tamaya's > > > board report. > > > > > > My check here: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2014 > > > > > > or my comments in this thread: > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tamaya- > > dev/201411.mbox/%3CCAOqetn8wkYuDNkTwkpKKOGzu%3Ds_cf4VMT5A9_e8mdpM6mO > > h- > > 6Q% > > 40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > All the check does (from my point of view) is give someone a brief > > summary > > > that things are looking good. The check mark doesn't imply any > > > due diligence on the mentor's part. It's very misleading to see > > > it that > way. > > > Take a look for example at the log4cxx2 podling's report. It has > > > mentor sign off, but the contents are barely present. The only > > > reason it has mentor sign off is because the mentor wrote the > > > report, after I (as the > > > shepherd) reminded the podling. > > > > > > > John, > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that the board should be delving into > > all the incubator mailing lists to determine whether you are paying > > attention to your mentoree groups? > > > > No, not in the slightest. But someone needs to look at it. Our > current notion of a board report is completely on the honour system. > It doesn't safeguard from the chance (which from what I can tell is > more often the > case) of a mentor writing and signing a report saying it's good to go. > > You can see some examples of this effect here: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4cxx- > dev/201412.mbox/%3C1418063938.3890690.200338789.1D0EE7B3% > 40webmail.messagingengine.com%3E > > There are also cases where there are clear issues w/ the podling but > aren't getting communicated properly on the report (or maybe just > oversight?) > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ripple- > dev/201412.mbox/%3CBY2PR03MB
Jan 2015 board report
Amidst all of the discussions around the incubator, we do still have a board report due (I guess?). I have not seen a single marvin invite though (I hope it wasn't stricken w/ the twitter bug :-( ). Anyone know what's up with that? Anyways I finished the last of my prior month duties (assigned shepherds, fix clutch, uploaded the next template). Reports are due in a week's time. I won't be able to give a hand this month, due to some other commitments. If anyone else is looking to step up to take care of the report, please feel free to run the runbook. John
Re: Volunteer to Shepherd
I think we need to come up with a way to verify the shepherds file is clean. Taylor's entry broke it, due to an extra "," on a line. I know chrome/firefox don't have this issue, but IE does. Maybe IE's using python under the hood for JSON support? X-D John On Fri Dec 19 2014 at 12:33:41 AM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:33 PM, P. Taylor Goetz > wrote: > > > >> I’d like to volunteer to help out as a shepherd. > > > > Super! I hope you find the experience broadening. > > Huge +1 to that! We are always in need of shepherds. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > This is at the root of my proposal to *expect* mentors to have a vested > interest in the success of a project. Every single one of us here shares that *expectation*. What this thread fails to address is a *practically* mechanism for that expectation to be met. After re-reading what Chris and Benson wrote, personally I'm convinced that this is, in part, because IPMC is just not incentivised to solve this problem. Just like if developers on an ASF project are not incentivised to work on a particular feature -- there will be no code, regardless of the ammount of email traffic and JIRA "tracking". I'll start a separate thread on this in the final [futile] attempt to move the needle on what a better, more responsible version of the incubation process should be offer. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: > So, promote those 20 people to ComDev PMC, promote them to ASF > members, promote them however, my guess is that they *care* about > the foundation; we want these people helping new projects, and they > will continue to help those new projects - along with the board - along > with everyone else. Thank you! Thank you for saying out loud what has become painfully obvious for me during the course of my tenure as an IPMC Chair. Personally, I see this as the only *honest* way forward. But I guess, IPMC has become too convenient a way for everybody to ignore the real problem. Including, I am sorry to say this, the board itself. I think it is time we address it instead of blindly going through the motions. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
