Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
My feeling is that the incubator incubates communities and their products. With the pTLP plan, the communities don't need incubating in the same way - they have sufficient maturity to self-manage. That is, to my mind, the essence of the proposal. In which case, it is the product that needs incubation, and thus an incubation annotation. Now, I would argue that *any* project can bring in code to form a product that isn't ready yet, and that needs to follow the steps described for a pTLP. That is, it is a product that is market provisional, not the community or project. Could, for example, a normal TLP produce an incubated or provisional product? Upayavira On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, at 03:00 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: On 3/4/15 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org mailto:cutt...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org mailto:r...@apache.org wrote: ... As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved in a pTLP's graduation. As far as I'm concerned, any provisional status is self-imposed by the PMC and can be removed at its pleasure. From the board's perspective it's either an ASF project or it's not, there's not a useful middle ground. As a project it needs to provide reports, release according to accepted standards, operate openly, etc. It may be a young project, with a PMC dominated by old-timers who aren't responsible for much of the contribution, but I don't see why that requires a new formal status any more than we need a formal status for old, slow-moving projects that rarely release. Put directly, what does a pTLP's graduation change from the board's perspective? How should it change the way we review the project's reports, etc.? In short, why should we care about this label? If a PMC wishes to call itself blue that's fine too, but we don't need a resolution when it decides to call itself purple. What's your view of 'incubation disclaimers'? The above paragraph makes most sense to me if there are none for pTLPs. The bigger question is: what does pTLP mean to the rest of the world? Incubation disclaimers are there to inform the rest of the world that the community working there, and the software it produces, are not (yet) true Apache projects. That is, we want end users to understand that there may be different expectations of project behavior and software product quality or availability for Incubator podlings than the world has for full Apache projects. How are we clearly describing to end users what differences they might expect between the operations and functionality of pTLPs versus Apache projects (i.e. formal TLPs)? And who, specifically, decides when the pTLP becomes a TLP? While it's important to ensure that we're being clear within our communities about how we operate and improve, in this case it's also really important that we make it clear to the rest of the world what a pTLP is. - Shane - 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: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
On 3/4/15 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org mailto:cutt...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org mailto:r...@apache.org wrote: ... As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved in a pTLP's graduation. As far as I'm concerned, any provisional status is self-imposed by the PMC and can be removed at its pleasure. From the board's perspective it's either an ASF project or it's not, there's not a useful middle ground. As a project it needs to provide reports, release according to accepted standards, operate openly, etc. It may be a young project, with a PMC dominated by old-timers who aren't responsible for much of the contribution, but I don't see why that requires a new formal status any more than we need a formal status for old, slow-moving projects that rarely release. Put directly, what does a pTLP's graduation change from the board's perspective? How should it change the way we review the project's reports, etc.? In short, why should we care about this label? If a PMC wishes to call itself blue that's fine too, but we don't need a resolution when it decides to call itself purple. What's your view of 'incubation disclaimers'? The above paragraph makes most sense to me if there are none for pTLPs. The bigger question is: what does pTLP mean to the rest of the world? Incubation disclaimers are there to inform the rest of the world that the community working there, and the software it produces, are not (yet) true Apache projects. That is, we want end users to understand that there may be different expectations of project behavior and software product quality or availability for Incubator podlings than the world has for full Apache projects. How are we clearly describing to end users what differences they might expect between the operations and functionality of pTLPs versus Apache projects (i.e. formal TLPs)? And who, specifically, decides when the pTLP becomes a TLP? While it's important to ensure that we're being clear within our communities about how we operate and improve, in this case it's also really important that we make it clear to the rest of the world what a pTLP is. - Shane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Hi Roman, On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: ... https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 ... Thanks for this, I meant to review but haven't found time so far for a detailed review. However, reading the comments of other board members here I'm more and more thinking that the provisional bit might not be practical nor really needed. A fast track to TLP creation sounds useful in some cases however, and some of it intersects with what the Incubator is doing with podlings, so we might reuse most of the pTLP ideas to better define that fast track. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved in a pTLP's graduation. As far as I'm concerned, any provisional status is self-imposed by the PMC and can be removed at its pleasure. From the board's perspective it's either an ASF project or it's not, there's not a useful middle ground. As a project it needs to provide reports, release according to accepted standards, operate openly, etc. It may be a young project, with a PMC dominated by old-timers who aren't responsible for much of the contribution, but I don't see why that requires a new formal status any more than we need a formal status for old, slow-moving projects that rarely release. Put directly, what does a pTLP's graduation change from the board's perspective? How should it change the way we review the project's reports, etc.? In short, why should we care about this label? If a PMC wishes to call itself blue that's fine too, but we don't need a resolution when it decides to call itself purple. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved in a pTLP's graduation. As far as I'm concerned, any provisional status is self-imposed by the PMC and can be removed at its pleasure. From the board's perspective it's either an ASF project or it's not, there's not a useful middle ground. As a project it needs to provide reports, release according to accepted standards, operate openly, etc. It may be a young project, with a PMC dominated by old-timers who aren't responsible for much of the contribution, but I don't see why that requires a new formal status any more than we need a formal status for old, slow-moving projects that rarely release. Put directly, what does a pTLP's graduation change from the board's perspective? How should it change the way we review the project's reports, etc.? In short, why should we care about this label? If a PMC wishes to call itself blue that's fine too, but we don't need a resolution when it decides to call itself purple. What's your view of 'incubation disclaimers'? The above paragraph makes most sense to me if there are none for pTLPs. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
The bylaws don't grok the idea of a provisional PMC; it either is one, or it isn't. So whether we call it provisional or not, legally we need to understand whether we actually want it as a real, official PMC or not. And if we do, what, again, does the provisional qualifier really mean? On Mar 4, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved in a pTLP's graduation. As far as I'm concerned, any provisional status is self-imposed by the PMC and can be removed at its pleasure. From the board's perspective it's either an ASF project or it's not, there's not a useful middle ground. As a project it needs to provide reports, release according to accepted standards, operate openly, etc. It may be a young project, with a PMC dominated by old-timers who aren't responsible for much of the contribution, but I don't see why that requires a new formal status any more than we need a formal status for old, slow-moving projects that rarely release. Put directly, what does a pTLP's graduation change from the board's perspective? How should it change the way we review the project's reports, etc.? In short, why should we care about this label? If a PMC wishes to call itself blue that's fine too, but we don't need a resolution when it decides to call itself purple. Doug - 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: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
On 03/04/2015 01:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org mailto:cutt...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org mailto:r...@apache.org wrote: At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved in a pTLP's graduation. As far as I'm concerned, any provisional status is self-imposed by the PMC and can be removed at its pleasure. From the board's perspective it's either an ASF project or it's not, there's not a useful middle ground. As a project it needs to provide reports, release according to accepted standards, operate openly, etc. It may be a young project, with a PMC dominated by old-timers who aren't responsible for much of the contribution, but I don't see why that requires a new formal status any more than we need a formal status for old, slow-moving projects that rarely release. Put directly, what does a pTLP's graduation change from the board's perspective? How should it change the way we review the project's reports, etc.? In short, why should we care about this label? If a PMC wishes to call itself blue that's fine too, but we don't need a resolution when it decides to call itself purple. What's your view of 'incubation disclaimers'? The above paragraph makes most sense to me if there are none for pTLPs. Can I answer your question with a question? What's your view of emeritus PMC members? From my point of view, I am OK with PMCs exploring placing disclaimers on releases, and OK with PMCs choosing to track emeritus PMC members. And once a PMC is established, it indicates a level of trust the board has in that group to self govern. As to podlings, I don't see them as yet having earned that trust. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. John: you can help a pTLP just as much as any other podling. Is your point that you don't have a binding vote? That your help is tied into such a forceful voice? ... I believe that your wisdom will be helpful, regardless of whether your vote is binding or not. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This is not a concern, and is one of the reasons that myself and others are championing the pTLP process. The above is not quite correct, and having ASF Members and direct interaction with the Board will help communities to understand what/how the Foundation truly operates. Yes, we require (3) +1 votes for a *release*. No, that requirement does not apply whatsoever to adding new PMC members, and certainly not towards new committers (and other aspects of turning community members into active contributors). The VP can unilaterally add new PMC members and committers. We don't like to see that, but you're already proposing a community in crisis; in that case, I *EXPECT* the VP to act unilaterally to reboot the active participation. And recall: the Board has the direct oversight and helpful aid for that project. If the VP is the one to disappear, then the Board will notice and will ask for a recommendation to replace. In short, a TLP or pTLP can always recover from stasis. Unlike a podling subject to another group for its well-being, a (p)TLP has the complete ability to rebuild itself. The VP of the (p)TLP is an Office and is directed towards ensuring the success and well-being of the project. That allows for a *very* wide-ranging set of actions. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. As Ross noted elsewhere, this is a new/experimental process for moving projects into the Foundation. The Incubator shall remain, and can continue to address your concern for projects without ASF Members to advance the pTLP style process. ... Cheers, -g
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
I may be taking a more cynical interpretation, but when I see that three votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't matter. On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully there should be no problem. Also note that you are incorrect in saying you will never get a binding vote. Earn merit in the community and get yourself invited into the PMC and you have a binding vote. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:33 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.commailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.orgmailto: johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org mailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.orgmailto: bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.netmailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.orgmailto: r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.orgmailto: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully there should be no problem. Also note that you are incorrect in saying you will never get a binding vote. Earn merit in the community and get yourself invited into the PMC and you have a binding vote. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:33 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.commailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.orgmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.orgmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.netmailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.orgmailto:r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Thanks Roman - I asked for karma before (not your fault) but no one granted it for me. I’ll take a look. Great job. ++ 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: Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Monday, March 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Board bo...@apache.org Subject: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:rubys@ intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Can you please remove the requirement for 3 legally independent PMC members. What we require is a PMC that operates as a meritocracy. This is possible even in a monoculture PMC. It's also possible to have the independent representatives that act in collusion. 3 independents was a useful yardstick in the original IPMC policies. Over the years it became a concrete requirement. We should go back to the original intent both in the IPMC and the pTLP proposal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:r...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 5:31 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman.
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Thanks Roman, I think that it is unnecessary to mention sub-projects in this document. If an external codebase and community are going into an existing TLP, it is often possible to do so via an IP Clearance process, depending on size of external community. // Niclas On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
If that were true then the project would not be operating as an Apache project which requires that all community members have a voice. Graduation requires the project be operating as an Apache project. In such a project there is a difference between a binding vote and a non-binding vote only in the legal aspects of the foundation. From a community perspective any valid opinion should be supported by those with binding vote. Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:50 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net; bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I may be taking a more cynical interpretation, but when I see that three votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't matter. On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully there should be no problem. Also note that you are incorrect in saying you will never get a binding vote. Earn merit in the community and get yourself invited into the PMC and you have a binding vote. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:33 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.commailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.orgmailto: johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org mailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.orgmailto: bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.netmailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.orgmailto: r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment
