Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need?.. As far as I'm concerned: a concise description of exactly how a pTLP is supposed to work: proposal, creation, probational period, graduation. At a permanent URL, and identifying who takes care of those various phases. What I'm going to do is to document to a level of details here: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html Hope this will be enough. Stay tuned. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Ok let me try again. I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea. My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people in their community that will ensure the project will graduate My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've been consistent with that feedback throughout. I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people seen to understand my point). So there you have it, I am taking a position. PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem. Am I being clear? One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need, and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Niclas, I'm in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don't agree with others that it hasn't been well specified yet. I There is (yet) a singular page that defines the process. Roman has been working on one. Your wiki page is coupled with other process/organizational changes. think it's easy to invent things that haven't been done and to overlook what has been done (more than 1 wiki page, in Incubator-ville; an in ComDev now, thanks to Roman; 100s-1000s of emails over many years on the subject, etc.). While agreed, and several Directors have been party to those discussions ... the internal discussion on board@ has shown a lack of recognition/review of all of that. This is not unexpected: that discussion occurred *here*. I thought it was reasonable to assume our fellow Directors to be caught up on that discussion, but that was presumptuous. ... The past years of discussion must be distilled, rather than oh, look in the archives. Continuing to play the bring me a rock game will lead to no progress. Yeah :-( I don't have a ton of confidence for pTLP in the current board. I also fully invite the membership of the ASF to use this as a measuring stick for future board members. Ask your board member candidates during the next ASF member election to answer this question before you cast you VOTE and use it to help decide. Agreed. Experimentation, rather than status quo. Cheers, -g
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into other proposals about changes to the Incubator. Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Ok let me try again. I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea. My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people in their community that will ensure the project will graduate My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've been consistent with that feedback throughout. I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people seen to understand my point). So there you have it, I am taking a position. PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem. Am I being clear? One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need, and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: ... Sam -- Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. I believe Sam gave this based on a singular, concrete proposal. He would likely respond differently over time, and over different proposals. Bertrand -- Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with. Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision. He has responded else-thread. , but warn possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. This is a concern for the pTLP community, not the Board. As we all know, the Board has a very large hammer. If you are doing something wrong, then you get shut down. There are a couple solutions just short of that, but they all hurt. Badly. ... Yet the real point is: the Board doesn't have any extra work that it doesn't already provided to TLPs here. And the Board even reviews podlings, via the Incubator report. ... so we're not really talking about any real, additional burden upon the Board. ... Cheers, -g
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Ok, take ur of the incubator list. Where my only comment is as power my mail below: PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 3:31 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into other proposals about changes to the Incubator. Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Ok let me try again. I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea. My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people in their community that will ensure the project will graduate My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've been consistent with that feedback throughout. I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people seen to understand my point). So there you have it, I am taking a position. PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem. Am I being clear? One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need, and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
I would like to pick this thread up again... IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members; Greg, Chris -- Would like to have Provisional badge, which entails disclaimers to alert users. Sam -- Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. Bertrand -- Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with. Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision. Doug -- Don't want to see more vectors for Board, as any future change to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at the TLP itself. Jim -- Was worried about the wording (run) that implied more work for Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is mulling over the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about just do it, document later approach. Ross -- Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to experiments to gather data. At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped. Opinions? Niclas On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes on a pTLP resolution. Resolution R2, paragraph 3: http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept a contravening resolution the next. *shrug* ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is left to the Board. ... Cheers, -g -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 3:46 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: I would like to pick this thread up again... Thanks! I apologize for being completely unavailable for the past 10 days or so -- the amount of stuff happening @$WORK was way too overwhelming. As a matter of fact, my biggest surprise was the fact that it didn't feel like the board ended up discussing pTLP at all last week. I was under the impression that we were expecting this to be the next step in this whole process. What gives? Am I not looking at the right place for notes (apologies -- like I said -- I'm still not 100% back from last week). Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Hi Niclas, I’m in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don’t agree with others that it hasn’t been well specified yet. I think it’s easy to invent things that haven’t been done and to overlook what has been done (more than 1 wiki page, in Incubator-ville; an in ComDev now, thanks to Roman; 100s-1000s of emails over many years on the subject, etc.). Continuing to play the “bring me a rock” game will lead to no progress. I don’t have a ton of confidence for pTLP in the current board. I also fully invite the membership of the ASF to use this as a measuring stick for future board members. Ask your board member candidates during the next ASF member election to answer this question before you cast you VOTE and use it to help decide. 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: Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment I would like to pick this thread up again... IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members; Greg, Chris -- Would like to have Provisional badge, which entails disclaimers to alert users. Sam -- Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. Bertrand -- Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with. Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision. Doug -- Don't want to see more vectors for Board, as any future change to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at the TLP itself. Jim -- Was worried about the wording (run) that implied more work for Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is mulling over the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about just do it, document later approach. Ross -- Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to experiments to gather data. At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped. Opinions? Niclas On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes on a pTLP resolution. Resolution R2, paragraph 3: http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_1 6.txt Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept a contravening resolution the next. *shrug* ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is left to the Board. ... Cheers, -g -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. How you would want to handle things is not necessarily the way the incoming chair wants to handle things. By delaying the discussion until afterwards I merely want to give the incoming chair a chance to have their input, as chair. I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. As for what's needed - that's simple a recommendation to the board which Iis clear an unambiguous. We are not there yet, we don't have consensus here. I believe we don't have consensus because we haven't tried things to provide data. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 3:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need? The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption a chair change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation Wow! That's kind of unfair. What disruption are you talking about? There will be a VOTE thread this week (now that I'm back to start it) and I haven't seen much disruption *at all*. Saying that pTLP is somehow blocked on this imaginary 'disruption' thing feels really weird. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Board@ discussions Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 3:53 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations. Is the precise nature of what being asked recorded anywhere? Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need? The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption a chair change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation Wow! That's kind of unfair. What disruption are you talking about? There will be a VOTE thread this week (now that I'm back to start it) and I haven't seen much disruption *at all*. Saying that pTLP is somehow blocked on this imaginary 'disruption' thing feels really weird. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need?.. As far as I'm concerned: a concise description of exactly how a pTLP is supposed to work: proposal, creation, probational period, graduation. At a permanent URL, and identifying who takes care of those various phases. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations. Is the precise nature of what being asked recorded anywhere? Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption a chair change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation (I don't plan pTLP like experiments, I have my own ideas expressed elsewhere on this list, but your summary of my views on pTLp is a fairly accurate representation). Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org Sent: 2/23/2015 12:14 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment I would like to pick this thread up again... IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members; Greg, Chris -- Would like to have Provisional badge, which entails disclaimers to alert users. Sam -- Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. Bertrand -- Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with. Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision. Doug -- Don't want to see more vectors for Board, as any future change to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at the TLP itself. Jim -- Was worried about the wording (run) that implied more work for Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is mulling over the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about just do it, document later approach. Ross -- Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to experiments to gather data. At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped. Opinions? Niclas On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes on a pTLP resolution. Resolution R2, paragraph 3: http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept a contravening resolution the next. *shrug* ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is left to the Board. ... Cheers, -g -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Hi, On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: ...At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped... To clarify my position, I'm very much in favor of the pTLP experiment, but given that some parts of it are similar to the way podlings happen today I would very much like the Incubator PMC and this list to be involved in those things, to avoid making more work for the board and to make sure the public awareness of pTLPs is the same as for podlings. I'm thinking of evaluating the initial proposal, preparing the board resolution that will create a pTLP, gathering the initial PMC members and initial committers, giving people a chance the jump in early, name checks, advertising the pTLP creation etc. etc. I might have missed something but I also haven't seen a concise description of how pTLPs are supposed to work - this is needed at a permanent public URL to allow us to decide if we want to move forward. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: I would like to pick this thread up again... Thanks! I apologize for being completely unavailable for the past 10 days or so -- the amount of stuff happening @$WORK was way too overwhelming. As a matter of fact, my biggest surprise was the fact that it didn't feel like the board ended up discussing pTLP at all last week. I was under the impression that we were expecting this to be the next step in this whole process. What gives? Am I not looking at the right place for notes (apologies -- like I said -- I'm still not 100% back from last week). Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes on a pTLP resolution. Resolution R2, paragraph 3: http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept a contravening resolution the next. *shrug* ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is left to the Board. ... Cheers, -g
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Roman, Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier; https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST should be https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI Niclas On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding comdev in the direction The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable. Yes, as long as it's done and discussed openly on the comdev list. Please help with both: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Proposal+for+Apache+Zest+pTLP Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done IMO board members have more important things to do than work on draft resolutions for new projects, Read it again, Bertrand: TEMPLATE RESOLUTION. The Board doesn't let arbitrary resolutions just drop on our desk. We expect them to be in a form that we agree with. Thus, any pTLP resolution must fit our expectations. That means how does this look, Board? what needs to change? Part of that has already occurred, when I provided some feedback on the (concrete) Zest resolution. A template still needs to be created from that. and it's also important for drafts of new projects to be discussed in public. If only to allow new people and mentors to jump in. Resolutions don't need to be discussed, since they are fill in the blank from a template. What needs to be discussed with the Board, is that template. I strongly suggest discussing such draft resolutions on this list. Even if the Incubator PMC is not formally involved in managing those pTLPs, this list is where the know-how about creating new projects resides, I see no reason to move that work elsewhere. Already agreed to. No need to beat that dead horse. ...2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a provisional TLP I don't understand why people want these things to move to comdev - did you even ask the comdev PMC about this? It sounds like people want to send a bunch of tasks their way, without even asking. It was brought up on dev@ just like it should, Bertrand. Stop assuming the worst. I see no reason for the pTLP process definition to happen outside of the Incubator, which is the PMC tasked with bringing new projects to the ASF. Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes on a pTLP resolution. -g
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Roman, Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier; https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST should be https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI Fixed! As a side note: I really need to figure out how to make sure this is a real wiki that allows folks to collaborate. Stay tuned -- I'll try to ping the ASF INFRA tomorrow. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes on a pTLP resolution. Resolution R2, paragraph 3: http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt That being said, it is perfectly in bounds for new resolutions to be proposed and considered. Also worth reading (search for proposed resolution): http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2012/board_minutes_2012_07_25.txt -g - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding comdev in the direction The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable. Yes, as long as it's done and discussed openly on the comdev list. Please help with both: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Proposal+for+Apache+Zest+pTLP Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done IMO board members have more important things to do than work on draft resolutions for new projects, and it's also important for drafts of new projects to be discussed in public. If only to allow new people and mentors to jump in. I strongly suggest discussing such draft resolutions on this list. Even if the Incubator PMC is not formally involved in managing those pTLPs, this list is where the know-how about creating new projects resides, I see no reason to move that work elsewhere. ...2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a provisional TLP I don't understand why people want these things to move to comdev - did you even ask the comdev PMC about this? It sounds like people want to send a bunch of tasks their way, without even asking. Three possible models: 1: 'comdev will do it'. I agree with you that this is wrong. 2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding comdev in the direction. 3: 'build the doc at the existing incubator.' The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable. I see no reason for the pTLP process definition to happen outside of the Incubator, which is the PMC tasked with bringing new projects to the ASF. -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: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Hi, On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding comdev in the direction The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable. Yes, as long as it's done and discussed openly on the comdev list. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Hi, I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done IMO board members have more important things to do than work on draft resolutions for new projects, and it's also important for drafts of new projects to be discussed in public. If only to allow new people and mentors to jump in. I strongly suggest discussing such draft resolutions on this list. Even if the Incubator PMC is not formally involved in managing those pTLPs, this list is where the know-how about creating new projects resides, I see no reason to move that work elsewhere. ...2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a provisional TLP I don't understand why people want these things to move to comdev - did you even ask the comdev PMC about this? It sounds like people want to send a bunch of tasks their way, without even asking. I see no reason for the pTLP process definition to happen outside of the Incubator, which is the PMC tasked with bringing new projects to the ASF. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
ComDev docs are in the CMS. All committers have write access. PMC members have publish access. Ross -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:56 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ... Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev documentation is maintained, etc? Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ... Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev documentation is maintained, etc? Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
There are a few things that I would suggest for next steps: 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements. 2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a provisional TLP. The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do for incubating podlings. 3) Note that I use provisional, since probationary implies you got in trouble. I wouldn't really worry about time frames. This will be a very subjective process, and every project is different. It will be hard to make a solid determination on day X in the future. If I were to put my thumb in the air, I'd say 6 and 12 months, rather than your 3/6. Cheers, -g On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment. To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly: #1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic about trying a pTLP route (and have a level of support from a few board members) will submit a pTLP proposal to the board. #2 based on how #1 goes we will try to establish a path for existing (willing!) podlings to be converted to pTLP. A solicitation and details of what to expect will be posted on general@ with the expectations of having a couple existing podlings as part of the experiment In about 3 months time frame, if #1 and #2 are moving in the right direction, I'd like to start offering pTLP *option* for new communities seeking to join ASF. By that time I hope to have some amount of documentation detailing the process and pros/cons compared to the existing IPMC led model. In about 6 months time frame I would like to have enough details in place to submit to IPMC and start a discussion on whether pTLP is a viable model that needs to be encouraged and what does it mean for IPMC and ASF Incubation process. For all practical purposes, consider me a self-appointed pTLP champion and please, please help along as much as you can! Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: There are a few things that I would suggest for next steps: 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements. 2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a provisional TLP. The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do for incubating podlings. +1000. This translates the idea of using ComDev as a venue for managing documentation into reality. Writers here want to pave a path for new projects outside the IPMC that depends on ComDev to take up some tasks. The sooner the action moves from 'here' to 'there', bringing actual volunteer effort, the better. 3) Note that I use provisional, since probationary implies you got in trouble. I wouldn't really worry about time frames. This will be a very subjective process, and every project is different. It will be hard to make a solid determination on day X in the future. If I were to put my thumb in the air, I'd say 6 and 12 months, rather than your 3/6. Cheers, -g On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment. To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly: #1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic about trying a pTLP route (and have a level of support from a few board members) will submit a pTLP proposal to the board. #2 based on how #1 goes we will try to establish a path for existing (willing!) podlings to be converted to pTLP. A solicitation and details of what to expect will be posted on general@ with the expectations of having a couple existing podlings as part of the experiment In about 3 months time frame, if #1 and #2 are moving in the right direction, I'd like to start offering pTLP *option* for new communities seeking to join ASF. By that time I hope to have some amount of documentation detailing the process and pros/cons compared to the existing IPMC led model. In about 6 months time frame I would like to have enough details in place to submit to IPMC and start a discussion on whether pTLP is a viable model that needs to be encouraged and what does it mean for IPMC and ASF Incubation process. For all practical purposes, consider me a self-appointed pTLP champion and please, please help along as much as you can! Thanks, Roman. - 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: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: There are a few things that I would suggest for next steps: 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements. 2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a provisional TLP. The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do for incubating podlings. +1000. This translates the idea of using ComDev as a venue for managing documentation into reality. Writers here want to pave a path for new projects outside the IPMC that depends on ComDev to take up some tasks. The sooner the action moves from 'here' to 'there', bringing actual volunteer effort, the better. Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev documentation is maintained, etc? Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: ...as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment So that I can decide to agree or flame (*), do you have a definition of the pTLP experiment with a permanent URL (wiki page or similar) ? I quite like Greg's definition in his my pTLP view thread but I have no idea if that's what you mean. -Bertrand (*) me, flaming? just kidding ;-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: ...as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment So that I can decide to agree or flame (*), do you have a definition of the pTLP experiment with a permanent URL (wiki page or similar) ? There will be a wiki page emerging. I quite like Greg's definition in his my pTLP view thread but I have no idea if that's what you mean. That's the starting point (or pretty close anyway). I don't want to put a formal definition up yet. Partially because I don't think any further debates would be useful, but most of all, because until we have real ASF board feedback for the submitted resolution -- there's nothing to talk about, really. If anyone wants to help with drafting an upcoming resolution -- let me know. Stay tuned guys. I'll keep updating this group with links to wiki, etc. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org