You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> on 2015/01/27 18:28:09 UTC
Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Hi!
as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really
passionate about championing the pTLP experiment.
To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly:
#1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic
about trying a pTLP route (and have a level of support
from a few board members) will submit a pTLP proposal
to the board.
#2 based on how #1 goes we will try to establish a path
for existing (willing!) podlings to be converted to pTLP.
A solicitation and details of what to expect will be posted
on general@ with the expectations of having a couple
existing podlings as part of the experiment
In about 3 months time frame, if #1 and #2 are moving in the
right direction, I'd like to start offering pTLP *option* for new
communities seeking to join ASF. By that time I hope to have
some amount of documentation detailing the process and pros/cons
compared to the existing IPMC led model.
In about 6 months time frame I would like to have enough details
in place to submit to IPMC and start a discussion on whether
pTLP is a viable model that needs to be encouraged and what
does it mean for IPMC and ASF Incubation process.
For all practical purposes, consider me a self-appointed pTLP
champion and please, please help along as much as you can!
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
ComDev docs are in the CMS. All committers have write access. PMC members have publish access.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:56 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
>...
> Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev
> documentation is maintained, etc?
>
Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
>...
> Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev
> documentation is maintained, etc?
>
Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Benson Margulies
<bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are a few things that I would suggest for "next steps":
>>
>> 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll
>> want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also
>> start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even
>> agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements.
>>
>> 2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional TLP".
>> The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do for
>> incubating podlings.
>
> +1000. This translates the idea of using ComDev as a venue for
> managing documentation into reality. Writers here want to pave a path
> for new projects outside the IPMC that depends on ComDev to take up
> some tasks. The sooner the action moves from 'here' to 'there',
> bringing actual volunteer effort, the better.
Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev
documentation is maintained, etc?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a few things that I would suggest for "next steps":
>
> 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll
> want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also
> start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even
> agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements.
>
> 2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional TLP".
> The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do for
> incubating podlings.
+1000. This translates the idea of using ComDev as a venue for
managing documentation into reality. Writers here want to pave a path
for new projects outside the IPMC that depends on ComDev to take up
some tasks. The sooner the action moves from 'here' to 'there',
bringing actual volunteer effort, the better.
>
> 3) Note that I use "provisional", since "probationary" implies you got in
> trouble.
>
> I wouldn't really worry about time frames. This will be a very subjective
> process, and every project is different. It will be hard to make a solid
> determination on day X in the future. If I were to put my thumb in the air,
> I'd say 6 and 12 months, rather than your 3/6.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really
>> passionate about championing the pTLP experiment.
>> To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly:
>> #1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic
>> about trying a pTLP route (and have a level of support
>> from a few board members) will submit a pTLP proposal
>> to the board.
>> #2 based on how #1 goes we will try to establish a path
>> for existing (willing!) podlings to be converted to pTLP.
>> A solicitation and details of what to expect will be posted
>> on general@ with the expectations of having a couple
>> existing podlings as part of the experiment
>>
>> In about 3 months time frame, if #1 and #2 are moving in the
>> right direction, I'd like to start offering pTLP *option* for new
>> communities seeking to join ASF. By that time I hope to have
>> some amount of documentation detailing the process and pros/cons
>> compared to the existing IPMC led model.
>>
>> In about 6 months time frame I would like to have enough details
>> in place to submit to IPMC and start a discussion on whether
>> pTLP is a viable model that needs to be encouraged and what
>> does it mean for IPMC and ASF Incubation process.
>>
>> For all practical purposes, consider me a self-appointed pTLP
>> champion and please, please help along as much as you can!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> Roman,
> Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier;
>
> https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST
>
> should be
>
> https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI
Fixed! As a side note: I really need to figure out how to make
sure this is a real wiki that allows folks to collaborate. Stay
tuned -- I'll try to ping the ASF INFRA tomorrow.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Roman,
Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier;
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST
should be
https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI
Niclas
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation
> >> for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding
> >> comdev in the direction....
> >
> >> The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable.
> >
> > Yes, as long as it's done and discussed openly on the comdev list.
>
> Please help with both:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Proposal+for+Apache+Zest+pTLP
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation
>> for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding
>> comdev in the direction....
>
>> The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable.
>
> Yes, as long as it's done and discussed openly on the comdev list.
Please help with both:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Proposal+for+Apache+Zest+pTLP
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation
> for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding
> comdev in the direction....
> The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable.
Yes, as long as it's done and discussed openly on the comdev list.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree:
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll
>> want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done....
>
> IMO board members have more important things to do than work on draft
> resolutions for new projects, and it's also important for drafts of
> new projects to be discussed in public. If only to allow new people
> and mentors to jump in.
>
> I strongly suggest discussing such draft resolutions on this list.
> Even if the Incubator PMC is not formally involved in managing those
> pTLPs, this list is where the know-how about creating new projects
> resides, I see no reason to move that work elsewhere.
>
>> ...2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional TLP"....
>
> I don't understand why people want these things to move to comdev -
> did you even ask the comdev PMC about this? It sounds like people want
> to send a bunch of tasks their way, without even asking.
Three possible models:
1: 'comdev will do it'. I agree with you that this is wrong.
2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation
for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding
comdev in the direction.
3: 'build the doc at the existing incubator.'
The momentary impulse is (2). You might find it tolerable.
>
> I see no reason for the pTLP process definition to happen outside of
> the Incubator, which is the PMC tasked with bringing new projects to
> the ASF.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>...
> Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with
> incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator.
>
I believe Sam gave this based on a singular, concrete proposal. He would
likely respond differently over time, and over different proposals.
> Bertrand --> Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with.
> Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision.
>
He has responded else-thread.
>....
> , but warn
> possible burden on Board if something goes wrong.
This is a concern for the pTLP community, not the Board. As we all know,
the Board has a very large hammer. If you are doing something wrong, then
you get shut down. There are a couple solutions just short of that, but
they all hurt. Badly. ... Yet the real point is: the Board doesn't have any
"extra work" that it doesn't already provided to TLPs here. And the Board
even reviews podlings, via the Incubator report. ... so we're not really
talking about any real, additional burden upon the Board.
>...
Cheers,
-g
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Board@ discussions
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
Sent: 2/23/2015 3:53 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations.
Is the precise nature of what being asked recorded anywhere?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations.
Is the precise nature of what being asked recorded anywhere?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
Sent: 2/23/2015 3:46 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> I would like to pick this thread up again...
Thanks! I apologize for being completely unavailable for the past 10 days
or so -- the amount of stuff happening @$WORK was way too overwhelming.
As a matter of fact, my biggest surprise was the fact that it didn't feel
like the board ended up discussing pTLP at all last week. I was under
the impression that we were expecting this to be the next step in this
whole process.
What gives? Am I not looking at the right place for notes (apologies -- like
I said -- I'm still not 100% back from last week).
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> I would like to pick this thread up again...
Thanks! I apologize for being completely unavailable for the past 10 days
or so -- the amount of stuff happening @$WORK was way too overwhelming.
As a matter of fact, my biggest surprise was the fact that it didn't feel
like the board ended up discussing pTLP at all last week. I was under
the impression that we were expecting this to be the next step in this
whole process.
What gives? Am I not looking at the right place for notes (apologies -- like
I said -- I'm still not 100% back from last week).
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Niclas,
>
> I'm in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don't
> agree with others that it hasn't been well specified yet. I
>
There is (yet) a singular page that defines the process. Roman has been
working on one. Your wiki page is coupled with other process/organizational
changes.
> think it's easy to invent things that haven't been
> done and to overlook what has been done (more than
> 1 wiki page, in Incubator-ville; an in ComDev now,
> thanks to Roman; 100s-1000s of emails over many years
> on the subject, etc.).
>
While agreed, and several Directors have been party to those discussions ...
the internal discussion on board@ has shown a lack of recognition/review of
all of that. This is not unexpected: that discussion occurred *here*. I
thought it was reasonable to assume our fellow Directors to be caught up on
that discussion, but that was presumptuous. ... The past years of discussion
must be distilled, rather than "oh, look in the archives".
>
> Continuing to play the "bring me a rock" game will
> lead to no progress.
>
Yeah :-(
>
> I don't have a ton of confidence for pTLP in the
> current board. I also fully invite the membership of
> the ASF to use this as a measuring stick for future
> board members. Ask your board member candidates during
> the next ASF member election to answer this question
> before you cast you VOTE and use it to help decide.
>
Agreed. Experimentation, rather than status quo.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Niclas,
I’m in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don’t
agree with others that it hasn’t been well specified yet. I
think it’s easy to invent things that haven’t been
done and to overlook what has been done (more than
1 wiki page, in Incubator-ville; an in ComDev now,
thanks to Roman; 100s-1000s of emails over many years
on the subject, etc.).
Continuing to play the “bring me a rock” game will
lead to no progress.
I don’t have a ton of confidence for pTLP in the
current board. I also fully invite the membership of
the ASF to use this as a measuring stick for future
board members. Ask your board member candidates during
the next ASF member election to answer this question
before you cast you VOTE and use it to help decide.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
>I would like to pick this thread up again...
>
>IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various
>views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members;
>
>Greg, Chris --> Would like to have "Provisional" badge, which entails
>disclaimers to alert users.
>
>Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with
>incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator.
>
>Bertrand --> Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with.
>Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision.
>
>Doug --> Don't want to see more "vectors" for Board, as any future change
>to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status
>from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at
>the TLP itself.
>
>Jim --> Was worried about the wording ("run") that implied more work for
>Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is "mulling over"
>the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about "just do it,
>document later" approach.
>
>Ross --> Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn
>possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to
>experiments to gather data.
>
>At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board
>level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus
>in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped.
>
>Opinions?
>
>Niclas
>
>On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only
>>way
>> to
>> > > become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
>> > > discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who
>> votes
>> > > on a pTLP resolution.
>> >
>> > Resolution R2, paragraph 3:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_1
>>6.txt
>>
>>
>> Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign
>> *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible
>>for
>> such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then
>>accept
>> a contravening resolution the next.
>>
>> *shrug*
>>
>> ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator.
>>Nothing
>> against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is
>> left to the Board.
>>
>> >...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> ...At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board
> level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus
> in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped...
To clarify my position, I'm very much in favor of the pTLP experiment,
but given that some parts of it are similar to the way podlings happen
today I would very much like the Incubator PMC and this list to be
involved in those things, to avoid making more work for the board and
to make sure the public awareness of pTLPs is the same as for
podlings.
I'm thinking of evaluating the initial proposal, preparing the board
resolution that will create a pTLP, gathering the initial PMC members
and initial committers, giving people a chance the jump in early, name
checks, "advertising" the pTLP creation etc. etc.
I might have missed something but I also haven't seen a concise
description of how pTLPs are supposed to work - this is needed at a
permanent public URL to allow us to decide if we want to move forward.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Ok, take ur of the incubator list. Where my only comment is as power my mail below:
PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the "p" and thus drop the confusion)
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Greg Stein<ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: 2/24/2015 3:31 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into
other proposals about changes to the Incubator.
Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Ok let me try again.
>
> I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given
> project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why
> bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal
> to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea.
>
> My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such
> projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have
> growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go
> straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people
> in their community that will ensure the project will graduate
>
> My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have
> that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've
> been consistent with that feedback throughout.
>
> I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try
> something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't
> say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at
> the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people
> seen to understand my point).
>
> So there you have it, I am taking a position.
>
> PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the "p" and thus drop
> the confusion)
>
> PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can
> reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem.
>
> Am I being clear?
>
> One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need,
> and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if
> someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal.
>
> Ross
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Greg Stein<ma...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
>
> "if we accept" ... take a position, Ross.
>
> The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A
> pTLP is a proposal to the Board.
>
> Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is
> merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator.
>
> Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then
> state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters.
>
> -g
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the
> > only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary
> > below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it.
> >
> > That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good
> one.
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > ________________________________
> > From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> > <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract
> > from the handover process.
> >
> > I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100%
> > orthogonal to
> > the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be
> > some overlap
> > of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to
> > proceed with
> > pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in
> > Hadoop land
> > (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC).
> >
> > > I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of
> > an experiment
> > > to distract from getting the right chair to replace you.
> >
> > That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to
> > decouple the two.
> >
> > If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT
> > to be involved
> > in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board,
> > I'd have to
> > re-evaluate things on my end.
> >
> > I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what
> I
> > based
> > my calculations on.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into
other proposals about changes to the Incubator.
Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Ok let me try again.
>
> I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given
> project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why
> bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal
> to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea.
>
> My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such
> projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have
> growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go
> straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people
> in their community that will ensure the project will graduate
>
> My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have
> that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've
> been consistent with that feedback throughout.
>
> I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try
> something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't
> say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at
> the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people
> seen to understand my point).
>
> So there you have it, I am taking a position.
>
> PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the "p" and thus drop
> the confusion)
>
> PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can
> reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem.
>
> Am I being clear?
>
> One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need,
> and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if
> someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal.
>
> Ross
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Greg Stein<ma...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
>
> "if we accept" ... take a position, Ross.
>
> The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A
> pTLP is a proposal to the Board.
>
> Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is
> merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator.
>
> Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then
> state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters.
>
> -g
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the
> > only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary
> > below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it.
> >
> > That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good
> one.
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > ________________________________
> > From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> > <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract
> > from the handover process.
> >
> > I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100%
> > orthogonal to
> > the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be
> > some overlap
> > of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to
> > proceed with
> > pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in
> > Hadoop land
> > (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC).
> >
> > > I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of
> > an experiment
> > > to distract from getting the right chair to replace you.
> >
> > That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to
> > decouple the two.
> >
> > If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT
> > to be involved
> > in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board,
> > I'd have to
> > re-evaluate things on my end.
> >
> > I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what
> I
> > based
> > my calculations on.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Ok let me try again.
I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea.
My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people in their community that will ensure the project will graduate
My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've been consistent with that feedback throughout.
I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people seen to understand my point).
So there you have it, I am taking a position.
PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the "p" and thus drop the confusion)
PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem.
Am I being clear?
One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need, and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal.
Ross
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Greg Stein<ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
"if we accept" ... take a position, Ross.
The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A
pTLP is a proposal to the Board.
Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is
merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator.
Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then
state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters.
-g
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the
> only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary
> below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it.
>
> That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
> Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract
> from the handover process.
>
> I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100%
> orthogonal to
> the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be
> some overlap
> of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to
> proceed with
> pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in
> Hadoop land
> (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC).
>
> > I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of
> an experiment
> > to distract from getting the right chair to replace you.
>
> That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to
> decouple the two.
>
> If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT
> to be involved
> in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board,
> I'd have to
> re-evaluate things on my end.
>
> I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I
> based
> my calculations on.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
"if we accept" ... take a position, Ross.
The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A
pTLP is a proposal to the Board.
Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is
merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator.
Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then
state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters.
-g
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the
> only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary
> below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it.
>
> That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
> Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract
> from the handover process.
>
> I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100%
> orthogonal to
> the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be
> some overlap
> of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to
> proceed with
> pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in
> Hadoop land
> (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC).
>
> > I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of
> an experiment
> > to distract from getting the right chair to replace you.
>
> That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to
> decouple the two.
>
> If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT
> to be involved
> in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board,
> I'd have to
> re-evaluate things on my end.
>
> I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I
> based
> my calculations on.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it.
That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process.
I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100%
orthogonal to
the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be
some overlap
of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to
proceed with
pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land
(although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC).
> I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment
> to distract from getting the right chair to replace you.
That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to
decouple the two.
If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT
to be involved
in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board,
I'd have to
re-evaluate things on my end.
I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based
my calculations on.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process.
I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100%
orthogonal to
the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be
some overlap
of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to
proceed with
pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land
(although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC).
> I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment
> to distract from getting the right chair to replace you.
That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to
decouple the two.
If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT
to be involved
in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board,
I'd have to
re-evaluate things on my end.
I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based
my calculations on.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. How you would want to handle things is not necessarily the way the incoming chair wants to handle things. By delaying the discussion until afterwards I merely want to give the incoming chair a chance to have their input, as chair.
I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you.
As for what's needed - that's simple a recommendation to the board which Iis clear an unambiguous. We are not there yet, we don't have consensus here. I believe we don't have consensus because we haven't tried things to provide data.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Roman Shaposhnik<ma...@shaposhnik.org>
Sent: 2/23/2015 3:52 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly.
That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need?
> The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption a chair
> change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation
Wow! That's kind of unfair. What disruption are you talking about?
There will be a VOTE thread
this week (now that I'm back to start it) and I haven't seen much
disruption *at all*.
Saying that pTLP is somehow blocked on this imaginary 'disruption'
thing feels really weird.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
>> <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly.
>>
>> That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need?..
>
> As far as I'm concerned: a concise description of exactly how a pTLP
> is supposed to work: proposal, creation, probational period,
> "graduation". At a permanent URL, and identifying who takes care of
> those various phases.
What I'm going to do is to document to a level of details here:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html
Hope this will be enough. Stay tuned.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly.
>
> That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need?..
As far as I'm concerned: a concise description of exactly how a pTLP
is supposed to work: proposal, creation, probational period,
"graduation". At a permanent URL, and identifying who takes care of
those various phases.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly.
That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need?
> The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption a chair
> change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation
Wow! That's kind of unfair. What disruption are you talking about?
There will be a VOTE thread
this week (now that I'm back to start it) and I haven't seen much
disruption *at all*.
Saying that pTLP is somehow blocked on this imaginary 'disruption'
thing feels really weird.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly.
The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption a chair change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation (I don't plan pTLP like experiments, I have my own ideas expressed elsewhere on this list, but your summary of my views on pTLp is a fairly accurate representation).
Ross
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Niclas Hedhman<ma...@hedhman.org>
Sent: 2/23/2015 12:14 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
I would like to pick this thread up again...
IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various
views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members;
Greg, Chris --> Would like to have "Provisional" badge, which entails
disclaimers to alert users.
Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with
incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator.
Bertrand --> Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with.
Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision.
Doug --> Don't want to see more "vectors" for Board, as any future change
to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status
from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at
the TLP itself.
Jim --> Was worried about the wording ("run") that implied more work for
Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is "mulling over"
the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about "just do it,
document later" approach.
Ross --> Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn
possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to
experiments to gather data.
At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board
level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus
in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped.
Opinions?
Niclas
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way
> to
> > > become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
> > > discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who
> votes
> > > on a pTLP resolution.
> >
> > Resolution R2, paragraph 3:
> >
> >
> >
> http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt
>
>
> Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign
> *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for
> such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept
> a contravening resolution the next.
>
> *shrug*
>
> ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing
> against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is
> left to the Board.
>
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
I would like to pick this thread up again...
IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various
views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members;
Greg, Chris --> Would like to have "Provisional" badge, which entails
disclaimers to alert users.
Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with
incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator.
Bertrand --> Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with.
Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision.
Doug --> Don't want to see more "vectors" for Board, as any future change
to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status
from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at
the TLP itself.
Jim --> Was worried about the wording ("run") that implied more work for
Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is "mulling over"
the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about "just do it,
document later" approach.
Ross --> Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn
possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to
experiments to gather data.
At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board
level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus
in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped.
Opinions?
Niclas
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way
> to
> > > become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
> > > discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who
> votes
> > > on a pTLP resolution.
> >
> > Resolution R2, paragraph 3:
> >
> >
> >
> http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt
>
>
> Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign
> *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for
> such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept
> a contravening resolution the next.
>
> *shrug*
>
> ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing
> against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is
> left to the Board.
>
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to
> > become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
> > discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes
> > on a pTLP resolution.
>
> Resolution R2, paragraph 3:
>
>
> http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt
Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign
*exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible for
such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then accept
a contravening resolution the next.
*shrug*
... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator. Nothing
against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is
left to the Board.
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to
> become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
> discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes
> on a pTLP resolution.
Resolution R2, paragraph 3:
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt
That being said, it is perfectly "in bounds" for new resolutions to be
proposed and considered. Also worth reading (search for "proposed
resolution"):
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2012/board_minutes_2012_07_25.txt
> -g
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I
> disagree:
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but
> you'll
> > want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done....
>
> IMO board members have more important things to do than work on draft
> resolutions for new projects,
Read it again, Bertrand: TEMPLATE RESOLUTION.
The Board doesn't let arbitrary resolutions just drop on our desk. We
expect them to be in a form that we agree with. Thus, any pTLP resolution
must fit our expectations. That means "how does this look, Board? what
needs to change?"
Part of that has already occurred, when I provided some feedback on the
(concrete) Zest resolution. A template still needs to be created from that.
> and it's also important for drafts of
> new projects to be discussed in public. If only to allow new people
> and mentors to jump in.
>
Resolutions don't need to be discussed, since they are "fill in the blank"
from a template. What needs to be discussed with the Board, is that
template.
> I strongly suggest discussing such draft resolutions on this list.
> Even if the Incubator PMC is not formally involved in managing those
> pTLPs, this list is where the know-how about creating new projects
> resides, I see no reason to move that work elsewhere.
>
Already agreed to. No need to beat that dead horse.
>
> > ...2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional
> TLP"....
>
> I don't understand why people want these things to move to comdev -
> did you even ask the comdev PMC about this? It sounds like people want
> to send a bunch of tasks their way, without even asking.
>
It was brought up on dev@ just like it should, Bertrand. Stop assuming the
worst.
>
> I see no reason for the pTLP process definition to happen outside of
> the Incubator, which is the PMC tasked with bringing new projects to
> the ASF.
>
Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to
become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes
on a pTLP resolution.
-g
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll
> want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done....
IMO board members have more important things to do than work on draft
resolutions for new projects, and it's also important for drafts of
new projects to be discussed in public. If only to allow new people
and mentors to jump in.
I strongly suggest discussing such draft resolutions on this list.
Even if the Incubator PMC is not formally involved in managing those
pTLPs, this list is where the know-how about creating new projects
resides, I see no reason to move that work elsewhere.
> ...2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional TLP"....
I don't understand why people want these things to move to comdev -
did you even ask the comdev PMC about this? It sounds like people want
to send a bunch of tasks their way, without even asking.
I see no reason for the pTLP process definition to happen outside of
the Incubator, which is the PMC tasked with bringing new projects to
the ASF.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
+1. Agree with Greg.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.mattmann@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: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
>There are a few things that I would suggest for "next steps":
>
>1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll
>want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also
>start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even
>agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements.
>
>2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional
>TLP".
>The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do
>for
>incubating podlings.
>
>3) Note that I use "provisional", since "probationary" implies you got in
>trouble.
>
>I wouldn't really worry about time frames. This will be a very subjective
>process, and every project is different. It will be hard to make a solid
>determination on day X in the future. If I were to put my thumb in the
>air,
>I'd say 6 and 12 months, rather than your 3/6.
>
>Cheers,
>-g
>
>On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really
>> passionate about championing the pTLP experiment.
>> To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly:
>> #1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic
>> about trying a pTLP route (and have a level of support
>> from a few board members) will submit a pTLP proposal
>> to the board.
>> #2 based on how #1 goes we will try to establish a path
>> for existing (willing!) podlings to be converted to pTLP.
>> A solicitation and details of what to expect will be posted
>> on general@ with the expectations of having a couple
>> existing podlings as part of the experiment
>>
>> In about 3 months time frame, if #1 and #2 are moving in the
>> right direction, I'd like to start offering pTLP *option* for new
>> communities seeking to join ASF. By that time I hope to have
>> some amount of documentation detailing the process and pros/cons
>> compared to the existing IPMC led model.
>>
>> In about 6 months time frame I would like to have enough details
>> in place to submit to IPMC and start a discussion on whether
>> pTLP is a viable model that needs to be encouraged and what
>> does it mean for IPMC and ASF Incubation process.
>>
>> For all practical purposes, consider me a self-appointed pTLP
>> champion and please, please help along as much as you can!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
There are a few things that I would suggest for "next steps":
1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll
want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also
start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even
agreed to try this!), and may produce some refinements.
2) Create a ComDev page discussing what it means to be a "provisional TLP".
The disclaimers/warnings/release-naming should likely mirror what we do for
incubating podlings.
3) Note that I use "provisional", since "probationary" implies you got in
trouble.
I wouldn't really worry about time frames. This will be a very subjective
process, and every project is different. It will be hard to make a solid
determination on day X in the future. If I were to put my thumb in the air,
I'd say 6 and 12 months, rather than your 3/6.
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really
> passionate about championing the pTLP experiment.
> To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly:
> #1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic
> about trying a pTLP route (and have a level of support
> from a few board members) will submit a pTLP proposal
> to the board.
> #2 based on how #1 goes we will try to establish a path
> for existing (willing!) podlings to be converted to pTLP.
> A solicitation and details of what to expect will be posted
> on general@ with the expectations of having a couple
> existing podlings as part of the experiment
>
> In about 3 months time frame, if #1 and #2 are moving in the
> right direction, I'd like to start offering pTLP *option* for new
> communities seeking to join ASF. By that time I hope to have
> some amount of documentation detailing the process and pros/cons
> compared to the existing IPMC led model.
>
> In about 6 months time frame I would like to have enough details
> in place to submit to IPMC and start a discussion on whether
> pTLP is a viable model that needs to be encouraged and what
> does it mean for IPMC and ASF Incubation process.
>
> For all practical purposes, consider me a self-appointed pTLP
> champion and please, please help along as much as you can!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really
>> passionate about championing the pTLP experiment....
>
> So that I can decide to agree or flame (*), do you have a definition
> of "the pTLP experiment" with a permanent URL (wiki page or similar) ?
There will be a wiki page emerging.
> I quite like Greg's definition in his "my pTLP view" thread but I have
> no idea if that's what you mean.
That's the starting point (or pretty close anyway). I don't want to put a formal
definition up yet. Partially because I don't think any further debates would
be useful, but most of all, because until we have real ASF board feedback
for the submitted resolution -- there's nothing to talk about, really. If anyone
wants to help with drafting an upcoming resolution -- let me know.
Stay tuned guys. I'll keep updating this group with links to wiki, etc.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really
> passionate about championing the pTLP experiment....
So that I can decide to agree or flame (*), do you have a definition
of "the pTLP experiment" with a permanent URL (wiki page or similar) ?
I quite like Greg's definition in his "my pTLP view" thread but I have
no idea if that's what you mean.
-Bertrand
(*) me, flaming? just kidding ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org