FWIW, I've been saying that I might be interested in helping with IP
auditing of podling releases, but not in the larger role of IPMC member.
You're right that temporary and restricted IPMC membership may be less
work, but here's a larger proposal anyway:
1. Establish role of 'IP Auditor'
Hi Alex,
I like where you are going with this, but I think that rather than invent a new
role within the ASF we might actually be on the track to how we make the IPMC
more like a normal PMC.
What you are calling IP Auditors is really one example of Incubator Committer
- there are two kinds of
Its not totally clear to me what that would look like. What would then
be the difference between an IP Stewards and what we currently call
mentor, where would they discuss and vote on adding new IP
Stewards? I'm not saying it couldn't be made to work and i guess this
is the sort of thing an
Please don’t cry out for something simple, you know
what my answer is but you don’t like hearing it.
The bottom line is that we need to provide to the board,
possibly on a per-podling basis, a list of people we
have approved for making binding decisions about release
votes. Why you want to tie
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
...My issue is that granting PMC membership is too big a step for many
podling members. Going from being newbie podling member, to a part of a
team responsible for 50+ incubator projects is, with the freedom to
mentor
Can I just ask how many people have we encountered who upon
being offered IPMC membership turned it down with grounds along
these lines? Why do we design policy about the fringes and not
the happy, average, well-adjusted individuals we meet daily here
who would be honored to help out and act
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Joseph Schaefer
joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Can I just ask how many people have we encountered who upon
being offered IPMC membership turned it down with grounds along
these lines?...
I'm not saying there are any, hence starting my suggesting with
assuming
The reason it might be dis-empowering is that currently one of the main
roles of the PPMC is voting in new committers so if the PPMC is initially
just the mentors then the other podling members wont be involved in that.
It might still be worth trying the approach as an experiment if a willing
Then lets disambiguate by not referring to the
“IP Stewards” as being the PPMC. Seems simple
enough.
On Nov 19, 2013, at 4:34 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason it might be dis-empowering is that currently one of the main
roles of the PPMC is voting in new committers so if
Hi Benson,
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
If the board were offering us another structural approach, this would
be a different discussion. But, unless I've gotten lost in the torrent
of email, the board isn't offering an alternative.
Yep you
On 17/11/13 11:17, Upayavira wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:59 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 11/16/13 8:47 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Alex,
I'm not sure I see the difference between a release auditor and an IPMC
member. If someone is sufficiently clued up to audit a release,
I don’t see how the situation is any worse
than it is now, where no one on the project
currently has a binding vote on a release.
Going from that to “a few” may seem unfair,
but we have to start somewhere and we need
to keep in mind that this is partly a training
exercise, where we need to see
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 04:59 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 11/16/13 8:47 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Alex,
I'm not sure I see the difference between a release auditor and an IPMC
member. If someone is sufficiently clued up to audit a release, then
they're surely ready
Joining a PMC does not meaning being handed even one of the keys to
the launch console for a nuclear missile. Joining a PMC means
accepting responsibility for the supervision of a project. We vote to
add someone to a PMC when they have shown the necessary commitment
and, well, common sense. Part
On 11/17/13 3:17 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
With a two tier model - with PPMC membership granting voting rights on
podling releases, then a podling would start with just mentors on its
PPMC. If you clearly knew what you were doing, you'd get voted onto the
PPMC pretty quickly, and
Benson,
How does that relate to my post? Not sure if I can see the connection.
Are you suggesting that we should be okay voting PPMC members who are
taking responsibility within their project into the Incubator PMC? To
me, that would be equivalent to granting a new committer ASF membership
while
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 03:41 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 11/17/13 3:17 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
With a two tier model - with PPMC membership granting voting rights on
podling releases, then a podling would start with just mentors on its
PPMC. If you clearly knew what you
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
1) I think there is more to PPMC membership than just voting on releases.
I'm sure that everyone agrees on this point 100%. Everything that Benson had
to say a couple messages back about PMC membership[1] also applies to PPMC
Marvin, you have my wholehearted agreement.
Upayavira
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013, at 07:18 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
1) I think there is more to PPMC membership than just voting on releases.
I'm sure that everyone agrees on
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Benson,
How does that relate to my post? Not sure if I can see the connection.
I thought I was replying to Alex, but my sentiment is applicable to
what you write below.
The IPMC is a group of people with a job. It's not a
On 11/17/13 10:38 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Also, any ASF member can ask to join the Incubator PMC. So, any ASF
member can technically review any vote, simply by sending an email to
the Incubator PMC private list - so we have that situation already. I'd
have no issue with members
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 06:07 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 11/14/13 9:07 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I still think that having a Release Auditor role provides backup for
getting incubator releases
On 11/16/13 8:47 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Alex,
I'm not sure I see the difference between a release auditor and an IPMC
member. If someone is sufficiently clued up to audit a release, then
they're surely ready to join the Incubator PMC. Am I missing something?
To me, there is
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What i'd like to try is more similar to the pTLP approach previously
talked about. So take some existing podling, eg Stratos and/or
VXQuery, and
On 10 November 2013 08:00, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
IMO, there are two problems:
1) We're trying to train folks to manage IP for their community but they
have to seek approval from folks are aren't as vested in their community.
My analogy is telling a new city council member:
On 11/14/13 9:07 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I still think that having a Release Auditor role provides backup for
getting incubator releases out without having folks have to be on the
IPMC
to approve
Those sound like fine experiments to try - having a release auditor,
and a new podling with the PPMC have binding votes and initially
seeded just with IPMC members - however they aren't the experiments i
was thinking of.
What i'd like to try is more similar to the pTLP approach previously
talked
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I still think that having a Release Auditor role provides backup for
getting incubator releases out without having folks have to be on the IPMC
to approve the legal aspects of a release. Just like any ASF Member can
backup
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What i'd like to try is more similar to the pTLP approach previously
talked about. So take some existing podling, eg Stratos and/or
VXQuery, and give the PPMC binding votes. They have experienced and
active mentors so there
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
So, we _can_ let podlings have their own binding release votes and we
could do our own pTLP type experiments without even needing to go to
the board. We should try that. Not for every podling but just for
select ones where
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013, at 06:14 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
So, we _can_ let podlings have their own binding release votes and we
could do our own pTLP type experiments without even needing to go to
the board. We should
On 11/13/13 10:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
While a number of people have expressed a preference for the approach of
electing more podling contributors directly onto the IPMC, in practice it
remains uncertain whether the IPMC is capable of identifying, nominating
and
On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
So, we _can_ let podlings have their own binding release votes and we
could do our own pTLP type experiments without even needing to go to
the
Release votes are expected to be a decision of the list of people
empowered by the foundation to make that decision. How that list
of people is populated for podlings is up to the PMC. Right now,
the only list we have is the IPMC itself, as appointed by the board.
If the Incubator wants to
Thanks for that Roy.
So, we _can_ let podlings have their own binding release votes and we
could do our own pTLP type experiments without even needing to go to
the board. We should try that. Not for every podling but just for
select ones where the circumstances mean it will work better than the
I don't think this is prudent, having only one binding vote is too low a check.
We at the ASF have a responsibility to the public. I want to be certain that no
one steam rolls the process. Just the fact that there are edge cases means we
need to be careful.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
IMO, there are two problems:
1) We're trying to train folks to manage IP for their community but they
have to seek approval from folks are aren't as vested in their community.
My analogy is telling a new city council member: Welcome to the city
council. For the next year all of your decisions
How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
they don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it
at least three votes only one of which must be binding. That would
mean there would still be the element of oversight that a mentor vote
gives but avoids all the
On 10/11/13 09:04, ant elder wrote:
How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
they don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it
at least three votes only one of which must be binding. That would
mean there would still be the element of oversight that
A summarized agreement with this thread:
The bottom line, I think, is that _someone_ has to provide the
supervision that the board delegates to a PMC.
The virtue of the 'demolish the incubator' proposal is that it makes
that point absolutely clear. If there were no incubator, the board
would
On 11/10/13 5:46 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
A summarized agreement with this thread:
The bottom line, I think, is that _someone_ has to provide the
supervision that the board delegates to a PMC.
The virtue of the 'demolish the incubator' proposal is that it makes
that
On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:04 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
they don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it
at least three votes only one of which must be binding. That would
mean there would still
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
A summarized agreement with this thread:
8 snip 8
One could hope that this schema is a near-complete solution to vote
problems. The _first_ release benefits from mentors who signed up to
be there and vote,
Unlikely to get at least Roy’s approval because release
votes are expected to be a decision of the full committee,
not any one member of it.
On Nov 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:04 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
How about
Hi,
I'm proud to be part of that group. I would like to see it grow -- in my
view, the Incubator has erred by not recruiting aggressively enough!
+1 On every project that goes through incubation there should be several
candidates that now understand the incubation process worked and the
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Joseph Schaefer
joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Unlikely to get at least Roy’s approval because release
votes are expected to be a decision of the full committee,
not any one member of it.
+1: Much as some people here as in favor of dismantlement, and others
No offense folks, but this isn’t exactly new
information or has anyone offered an actual
PATH to follow to get us out of this mess.
Bringing more people into the IPMC can be accomplished
by anyone willing to put some names out there
for us to consider, but that hasn’t yielded
anything so far to
,
...ant
-- Forwarded message --
From: Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Unlikely to get at least Roy’s approval because release
votes are expected
Hi Marvin
Am 09.11.13 07:15, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for
example) unless that sub-committee consisted of
On 11/09/2013 03:38 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
Hi Marvin
Am 09.11.13 07:15, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for
On 11/09/2013 02:23 AM, Jake Farrell wrote:
We have a process in place which graduates a given incubating project to
TLP, why add a middle layer with a pTLP? There are enough steps in the
process, pTLP is not needed in my opinion.
I wholeheartedly agree. Adding more layers of projects or
The reason we are reduced to guesswork
and posturing about how to fix what ails
us is because we haven’t a clue what the
core problems with incubation are. All we
have are a rash of symptoms: inadequate
release voting oversight, inadequate podling
community development, etc. It sure would’ve
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Dave Brondsema d...@brondsema.net wrote:
On 11/09/2013 02:23 AM, Jake Farrell wrote:
If mentors are not performing their duties to vote on a given releases for
a podling, then it is up to the IPMC as a whole to help that podling by
doing the do diligence and
On 7 November 2013 22:22, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
Concretely, there are several possible implementations.
There's this pTLP variant:
1. Start with a Board resolution establishing a pTLP PMC seeded with IPMC
members.
2. Vote podling contributors onto the PMC as
As one of the mentors singled out I fully appreciate your very reasonable
explanation of your motives. On top of that those mentors do have thick
skins.
No harm done, I'm sure.
Ross
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Senior Technology Evangelist
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft
IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for
example) unless that sub-committee consisted of members of the IPMC. The
reason for this is hat only members of the IPMC are recognized by the board
and thus only IPMC members have binding votes.
That doesn't prevent social
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 7, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 7 November 2013 11:20, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for
example) unless that sub-committee consisted of members of the IPMC. The
reason for this is hat only members of the IPMC are recognized by the
board
and thus only IPMC
On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
Still, because my point was awkwardly crafted, I wound up singling out the
Allura team in a negative context. I apologize for my clumsiness.
And my apologies for ramping up the drama... This email came
at a time
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
As soon as you step off your soapbox, be sure to provide some
suggestions...
When an individual makes major contributions to the incubation of a
No offense Ross but give me a break. While I’m
glad to see my initial ideas gain so much traction
in the incubator now that people no longer remember
where they come from, and even are willing to falsely
claim credit for them, but this whole idea of populating
the IPMC with ordinary podling
Yeah, sorry Joe. There have been many of us who tried to do this over the
years. You are correct that you also championed a number of people as did
some others possibly before and certainly after the ones I championed.
My apologies, I didn't intend to take credit, only indicate that the IPMC
as a
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 7 November 2013 22:22, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
1. Start with a Board resolution establishing a pTLP PMC seeded with IPMC
members.
2. Vote podling contributors onto the PMC as they
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee (for
example) unless that sub-committee consisted of members of the IPMC. The
reason for this is hat only
We have a process in place which graduates a given incubating project to
TLP, why add a middle layer with a pTLP? There are enough steps in the
process, pTLP is not needed in my opinion.
If mentors are not performing their duties to vote on a given releases for
a podling, then it is up to the
Greetings,
On August 28th, the Allura podling presented a release candidate to this list.
Three weeks later, the VOTE was still open, and three of four Allura Mentors
still had not been heard from.
It so happens that the wayward Mentors all have illustrious reputations and
exceptional records of
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
reward merit earned by individual podling contributors. Instead, we teach
people to hate the Incubator by placing their projects at the mercy
Certainly this is being addressed and fixed in the current 1.0.1
release thread... So why is something 2 months old such a
bee in your bonnet right now?
And no, it's not acceptable. And I will state that, imo, the reason
is due to the mistake of having 1 mentor. Back when the Incubator
1st
On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
reward merit earned by individual podling contributors.
Idea: Allow for podlings to nominate, and elect, Podling chairs
which can cast
@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:20 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
The Incubator has
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:31 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
On Nov 7
On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
The Incubator's system for approving releases is at odds with everything we
believe at Apache about self-governance. It produces inferior releases, an
inferior incubation experience, inferior students and an inferior
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
reward merit earned by individual podling contributors.
Idea: Allow
Subject: Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
On Nov 7, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Chris Mattmann mattm...@apache.org wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:31 PM
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
reward merit earned by individual podling contributors.
Idea: Allow for
On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
On 7 November 2013 11:20, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
reward merit earned by individual podling contributors. Instead, we
On 7 November 2013 11:31, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
reward merit earned by individual podling contributors.
Idea: Allow for
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
As soon as you step off your soapbox, be sure to provide some
suggestions...
When an individual makes major contributions to the incubation of a podling --
particularly in the areas of legal and community development -- they
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Certainly this is being addressed and fixed in the current 1.0.1
release thread...
Indeed.
So why is something 2 months old such a bee in your bonnet right now?
I chose to highlight the Allura situation because it
I have one (hopefully) simple question for those more familiar with the
ASF\s bylaws/etc.
As I understand it, the board has delegated responsibility for the
incubator, and thus incubator podlings, to the Incubator PMC and its
members. Thus, it is only members of the Incubator PMC that have the
Upayavira wrote:
I have one (hopefully) simple question for those more familiar with the
ASF\s bylaws/etc.
As I understand it, the board has delegated responsibility for the
incubator, and thus incubator podlings, to the Incubator PMC and its
members. Thus, it is only members of the
David Crossley wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
I have one (hopefully) simple question for those more familiar with the
ASF\s bylaws/etc.
As I understand it, the board has delegated responsibility for the
incubator, and thus incubator podlings, to the Incubator PMC and its
members. Thus, it
83 matches
Mail list logo
