Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
Thanks for all the hard work Roman! - Henry On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Hi! > > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a > rotating chair. > > At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last > day of the year a perfect cut-off point to start talking about > transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue: > > At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is > not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That > is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody > involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC > gets completely dissolved. Here's why: > > First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris > and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks > the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all > about: Apache project on training wheels. Instead of teaching > our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC > and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board, > we have IPMC. > > After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully > convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem > with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all > the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient > of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with > responsibility. > > While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system > is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability > What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with > authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the > project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC > of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and > the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal > "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status > is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without > the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case > with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing > is clearly lacking. > > Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC > in order to fix this, one might say that something along the > lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think > that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility > is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating > project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either > in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma > (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to). > > But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility > wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the > way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in > overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction > will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as > producing releases or growing the community. The scalability > of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still > needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover > if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would > all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation > at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If nothing else, this real > engagement gives the board a very early indicator of > its own scalability issues if any. Early warning are a good > thing, not something that needs to be feared. > > All in all, it feels like direct overseeing of Incubating projects > would be a good thing for the poddlings, a good thing for > the mentors, a good thing for the board and ultimately > the only mature and responsible way of making sure that > the project we try to embrace get the best shot of becoming > ASF TLPs. At this point, I'm struggling to see any potential > negative effects. In fact, if there's one thing I really would > like everybody commenting on this thread to focus on it would > be that: arguing for potential downsides. > > With that, I'd like to thank all of my IPMC colleagues for > this great opportunity and wish all of you the Happiest > New Year! > > Thanks, > Roman. > > == > From: Mattmann, Chris A > > [...snip...] > 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 ma
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > ...First of all, I really appreciate the positive feedback on my tenure > expressed on this thread Hey it looks like I missed this one: big thanks Roman for your work here! Leaving so soon, really? ;-) -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
Hi! I think this thread has achieved its goal and the real discussion is now happening on the thread re: Benson's proposal. I couldn't have asked for more -- lets move the real discussion over there. Before we do that, however, I wanted to make a few quick remarks. First of all, I really appreciate the positive feedback on my tenure expressed on this thread. All I can say is: I tried my best and I couldn't have survived as long as I did without lots of support from my dear colleagues and mentors. Thank you! Re: Upayavira's point on release auditing. I believe this has been adequately answered and incorporated into Benson's proposal. Re: ||| It is my impression that no one is very happy with the current state ||| of the incubation process. On the other hand, I'm sure, from extensive ||| personal experience, that the IPMC's size is a serious impediment to ||| addressing its issues. It's just very, very, hard to reach consensus ||| at this scale. [...] ||| My proposal is to form a select committee. Huge +1 to the idea. Benson, since you proposed it, could you please fork it off into a separate thread? With that: lets the rest of this discussion be conducted around the concrete proposal brought forth by Benson. At this point, I really hope we can make progress there and bring a real plan to the attention of the board soon. This thread is now officially closed ;-) Thanks, Roman. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Hi! > > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a > rotating chair. > > At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last > day of the year a perfect cut-off point to start talking about > transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue: > > At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is > not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That > is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody > involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC > gets completely dissolved. Here's why: > > First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris > and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks > the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all > about: Apache project on training wheels. Instead of teaching > our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC > and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board, > we have IPMC. > > After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully > convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem > with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all > the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient > of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with > responsibility. > > While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system > is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability > What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with > authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the > project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC > of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and > the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal > "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status > is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without > the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case > with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing > is clearly lacking. > > Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC > in order to fix this, one might say that something along the > lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think > that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility > is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating > project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either > in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma > (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to). > > But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility > wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the > way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in > overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction > will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as > producing releases or growing the community. The scalability > of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still > needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover > if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would > all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation > at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If no
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
On Dec 31, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a > rotating chair. Thank you for your awesome term of service! Regards, Alan
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > You might push > back on the board, formally, and challenge them to either officially > be discontented or leave the iPMC alone. I've been defending the Incubator before the Board for some time. I actually called in to the December Board meeting and was granted a request to speak during the Incubator segment; that's only the second time I've had something I thought was important enough to take the floor during a Board meeting. The critiques I've heard from the Board of late fall into roughly two categories. 1. The Incubator is not providing certain podlings with enough Mentoring. 2. The Incubator is graduating podlings who do not understand The Apache Way. I agree with Roman that the first problem arises due to fundamental flaws in the incentive structure of the Incubator. We have made some progress mitigating the consequences of this problem, but we have not addressed the underlying cause. To make further progress, I support a variety of approaches including controlled experiments (e.g. NiFi as pTLP) and incremental, reversible changes (such as requiring Mentor checkoff). The second critique is the one I take issue with. When TLPs transgress against some aspect of The Apache Way -- classically release policy, though most recently the issue has been PMC stratification -- some fraction of the Board seems to find fault with the Incubator for providing insufficient training. In my view, if the Board wants TLPs to follow Apache's rules better, it makes more sense to focus on making the rules coherent than giving the Incubator flak for failing to teach incoherent rules. I'd like to help -- I've got release policy clarifications in the can[1]. But in order to drive them through to final consensus I figure I have to set aside 2-4 weeks where reacting to developments on legal-discuss@apache must be my top priority at all times -- and since I got busy last fall I haven't been able to make such a commitment. Pruning complexity from Apache's policy documentation is hard. Marvin Humphrey [1] https://github.com/rectang/asfrelease - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
On 01/01/2015 08:32 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: I'd like to raise a topic directly related to the succession. To start, three cheers for Roman for all his hard work! cheers += 3; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
The problem I am concerned with is the lack of mentoring support in a small number of projects and the fact the IPMC doesn't handle those situations well. Other than that I agree with Marvin - the IPMC usually does a fantastic job Sent from my Windows Phone From: Marvin Humphrey<mailto:mar...@rectangular.com> Sent: 1/1/2015 7:51 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > three cheers for Roman for all his hard work! +1! +1! +1! > For all other projects in the Foundation, we say, 'The chair is just a > clerk who facilitates communications with the board.' Here at the > IPMC, we expect the chair to be moderator of a very fractious set of > arguments about how to incubate (or whether to even have an > incubator). A leader, even. For this reason, no one who runs for IPMC Chair will receive my support unless they pledge to serve for a limited duration. > It is my impression that no one is very happy with the current state > of the incubation process. I dissent. The Incubator is functioning about as well as it could under difficult circumstances, and I am extremely proud of our ongoing work. Including all that you do, Benson! The problems faced by the Incubator are the inevitable consequence of flaws in the Apache Software Foundation and The Apache Way. * We are expected to teach "The Apache Way", but "The Apache Way" has no authoritative definition. * We are expected to enforce Apache policy, but the the documentation of Apache policy is a sprawling, incoherent mess. Yes, incubator.apache.org is awful, but so is www.apache.org/dev<http://www.apache.org/dev> and community.apache.org. Why can't Apache produce decent policy? For the same reason that projects under Apache governance produce notoriously bloated APIs. * Consensus requirements make it all but impossible to remove complexity. * Openness requirements bias the system towards adding complexity. People should leave the Incubator alone and go work on more pressing problems. Come back once the ASF has policies normal people can understand. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
Marvin, I did go away. I came back to help with a podling, and fell into a conversation started by discontented board members. You might push back on the board, formally, and challenge them to either officially be discontented or leave the iPMC alone. Me, I have an idea for a proposal that might make everyone equally unhappy and improve some things. --benson - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > three cheers for Roman for all his hard work! +1! +1! +1! > For all other projects in the Foundation, we say, 'The chair is just a > clerk who facilitates communications with the board.' Here at the > IPMC, we expect the chair to be moderator of a very fractious set of > arguments about how to incubate (or whether to even have an > incubator). A leader, even. For this reason, no one who runs for IPMC Chair will receive my support unless they pledge to serve for a limited duration. > It is my impression that no one is very happy with the current state > of the incubation process. I dissent. The Incubator is functioning about as well as it could under difficult circumstances, and I am extremely proud of our ongoing work. Including all that you do, Benson! The problems faced by the Incubator are the inevitable consequence of flaws in the Apache Software Foundation and The Apache Way. * We are expected to teach "The Apache Way", but "The Apache Way" has no authoritative definition. * We are expected to enforce Apache policy, but the the documentation of Apache policy is a sprawling, incoherent mess. Yes, incubator.apache.org is awful, but so is www.apache.org/dev and community.apache.org. Why can't Apache produce decent policy? For the same reason that projects under Apache governance produce notoriously bloated APIs. * Consensus requirements make it all but impossible to remove complexity. * Openness requirements bias the system towards adding complexity. People should leave the Incubator alone and go work on more pressing problems. Come back once the ASF has policies normal people can understand. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
I'd like to raise a topic directly related to the succession. To start, three cheers for Roman for all his hard work! For all other projects in the Foundation, we say, 'The chair is just a clerk who facilitates communications with the board.' Here at the IPMC, we expect the chair to be moderator of a very fractious set of arguments about how to incubate (or whether to even have an incubator). A leader, even. This strikes me as odd. It is my impression that no one is very happy with the current state of the incubation process. On the other hand, I'm sure, from extensive personal experience, that the IPMC's size is a serious impediment to addressing its issues. It's just very, very, hard to reach consensus at this scale. So, is there an alternative to attempting to find a hero to pull the sword from the stone? My proposal is to form a select committee. This committee would accept the job of creating a comprehensive proposal for where to go with integration. It would, of course, deliberate in public, but the members of the committee would be the only 'committers' on the proposal. The committee would not be required to find a consensus of the entire IPMC, let alone all of members@. The committee would make interim reports to the board so that the proposal could be tuned, incrementally, to be one that the board could accept. This would allow the next IPMC chair to be sign up only to be the sort of modest bureaucrat that we usually talk about. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Upayavira wrote: > The incubator PMC does fulfill one important role, that of being a > vettor of releases. It doesn't always do it well, but sometimes it does. > The scenario you describe above would put that responsibility entirely > upon the mentors. > > I would argue though, that it doesn't require a 100+ committee to fulfil > that requirement. Perhaps we could ask the legal affairs committee to > accept a responsibility for vetting first releases. Perhaps needing one > vote for a first release, or for all releases? It would be great to > offer such a service to non-incubating projects that produce new > products also - that knowledge and ability shouldn't be locked into the > incubator PMC. There could be a much-reduced IPMC that had, as it's only function, to be an additional gate on pTLP releases. For extra credit, it could audit a few releases of ordinary TLPs from time to time. We don't have to retire the name 'IPMC' to shift the model. There is the question of PR/disclaimer to sort out. > > That seems the one missing piece as yet undiscussed in the various > "disband the incubator" discussions. > > Upayavira > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015, at 01:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote: >> Roman, >> >> Thank you for your time as the chair. I eagerly look forward to the >> point >> where there is no need for the IPMC. >> >> John >> >> On Wed Dec 31 2014 at 8:27:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> >> > Hi! >> > >> > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on >> > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the >> > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. >> > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period >> > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months >> > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, >> > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a >> > rotating chair. >> > >> > At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last >> > day of the year a perfect cut-off point to start talking about >> > transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue: >> > >> > At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is >> > not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That >> > is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody >> > involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC >> > gets completely dissolved. Here's why: >> > >> > First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris >> > and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks >> > the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all >> > about: Apache project on training wheels. Instead of teaching >> > our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC >> > and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board, >> > we have IPMC. >> > >> > After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully >> > convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem >> > with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all >> > the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient >> > of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with >> > responsibility. >> > >> > While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system >> > is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability >> > What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with >> > authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the >> > project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC >> > of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and >> > the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal >> > "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status >> > is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without >> > the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case >> > with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing >> > is clearly lacking. >> > >> > Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC >> > in order to fix this, one might say that something along the >> > lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think >> > that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility >> > is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating >> > project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either >> > in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma >> > (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to). >> > >> > But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility >> > wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the >> > way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in >> > overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction >> > will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as >> > producing releases or growing the community. The scalability >> > of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still >> > needs to read all the Incubating repo
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
The incubator PMC does fulfill one important role, that of being a vettor of releases. It doesn't always do it well, but sometimes it does. The scenario you describe above would put that responsibility entirely upon the mentors. I would argue though, that it doesn't require a 100+ committee to fulfil that requirement. Perhaps we could ask the legal affairs committee to accept a responsibility for vetting first releases. Perhaps needing one vote for a first release, or for all releases? It would be great to offer such a service to non-incubating projects that produce new products also - that knowledge and ability shouldn't be locked into the incubator PMC. That seems the one missing piece as yet undiscussed in the various "disband the incubator" discussions. Upayavira On Thu, Jan 1, 2015, at 01:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Roman, > > Thank you for your time as the chair. I eagerly look forward to the > point > where there is no need for the IPMC. > > John > > On Wed Dec 31 2014 at 8:27:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on > > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the > > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. > > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period > > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months > > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, > > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a > > rotating chair. > > > > At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last > > day of the year a perfect cut-off point to start talking about > > transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue: > > > > At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is > > not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That > > is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody > > involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC > > gets completely dissolved. Here's why: > > > > First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris > > and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks > > the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all > > about: Apache project on training wheels. Instead of teaching > > our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC > > and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board, > > we have IPMC. > > > > After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully > > convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem > > with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all > > the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient > > of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with > > responsibility. > > > > While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system > > is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability > > What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with > > authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the > > project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC > > of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and > > the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal > > "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status > > is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without > > the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case > > with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing > > is clearly lacking. > > > > Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC > > in order to fix this, one might say that something along the > > lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think > > that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility > > is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating > > project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either > > in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma > > (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to). > > > > But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility > > wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the > > way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in > > overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction > > will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as > > producing releases or growing the community. The scalability > > of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still > > needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover > > if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would > > all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation > > at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If nothing else, this real > > engagement gives the board a very early indicator of > > its own scalability issues if any. Early warning are a good > > thing, not something that needs to be feared. > > > > All in all, it feels like direct overseeing of Incubating projects > > would be a
Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
Roman, Thank you for your time as the chair. I eagerly look forward to the point where there is no need for the IPMC. John On Wed Dec 31 2014 at 8:27:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Hi! > > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a > rotating chair. > > At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last > day of the year a perfect cut-off point to start talking about > transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue: > > At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is > not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That > is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody > involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC > gets completely dissolved. Here's why: > > First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris > and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks > the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all > about: Apache project on training wheels. Instead of teaching > our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC > and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board, > we have IPMC. > > After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully > convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem > with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all > the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient > of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with > responsibility. > > While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system > is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability > What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with > authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the > project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC > of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and > the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal > "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status > is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without > the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case > with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing > is clearly lacking. > > Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC > in order to fix this, one might say that something along the > lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think > that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility > is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating > project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either > in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma > (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to). > > But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility > wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the > way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in > overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction > will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as > producing releases or growing the community. The scalability > of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still > needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover > if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would > all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation > at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If nothing else, this real > engagement gives the board a very early indicator of > its own scalability issues if any. Early warning are a good > thing, not something that needs to be feared. > > All in all, it feels like direct overseeing of Incubating projects > would be a good thing for the poddlings, a good thing for > the mentors, a good thing for the board and ultimately > the only mature and responsible way of making sure that > the project we try to embrace get the best shot of becoming > ASF TLPs. At this point, I'm struggling to see any potential > negative effects. In fact, if there's one thing I really would > like everybody commenting on this thread to focus on it would > be that: arguing for potential downsides. > > With that, I'd like to thank all of my IPMC colleagues for > this great opportunity and wish all of you the Happiest > New Year! > > Thanks, > Roman. > > == > From: Mattmann, Chris A > > [...snip...] > 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 i
Reflections from the outgoing Chair
Hi! when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a rotating chair. At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last day of the year a perfect cut-off point to start talking about transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue: At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC gets completely dissolved. Here's why: First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all about: Apache project on training wheels. Instead of teaching our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board, we have IPMC. After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with responsibility. While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing is clearly lacking. Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC in order to fix this, one might say that something along the lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to). But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as producing releases or growing the community. The scalability of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If nothing else, this real engagement gives the board a very early indicator of its own scalability issues if any. Early warning are a good thing, not something that needs to be feared. All in all, it feels like direct overseeing of Incubating projects would be a good thing for the poddlings, a good thing for the mentors, a good thing for the board and ultimately the only mature and responsible way of making sure that the project we try to embrace get the best shot of becoming ASF TLPs. At this point, I'm struggling to see any potential negative effects. In fact, if there's one thing I really would like everybody commenting on this thread to focus on it would be that: arguing for potential downsides. With that, I'd like to thank all of my IPMC colleagues for this great opportunity and wish all of you the Happiest New Year! Thanks, Roman. == From: Mattmann, Chris A [...snip...] 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 pro
