You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stratos.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2013/08/06 10:10:47 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
...ant
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com> wrote:
> I'm happy to drive the proposal .. can we do it on dev@? I'm not on the
> PPMC.
>
> If so, Ant, lets catch up a bit one of these so we can start a Wiki
> proposal. Maybe target August board meeting at this point?
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> There needs to be a concrete proposal from this PPMC and its mentors, so
>> no we are not on track.
>>
>> However, Ant did mail me offlist a few days ago to let me know he's been
>> swamped but does plan to get to this soon.
>>
>> Of course the discussion doesn't need to be led by Ant.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>> Sent: 7/20/2013 9:30 PM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
>>
>> Looks like there was no follow-up to this. Ross are you still on track to
>> put this forward?
>>
>> Sanjiva.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> During the proposal phase for the Stratos podling I floated the idea of
>>> the IPMC using the podling to experiment with a more streamlined incubation
>>> process.
>>>
>>> It is not my intention to drive this experiment. Ant Elder expressed a
>>> desire to explore the idea during recent discussions among the IPMC. Whilst
>>> we were drawing up the Stratos proposal I asked Ant if he would be willing
>>> to lead the experiment. He agreed.
>>>
>>> In this mail I will summarize the relevant parts of the discussion thread
>>> on the general@incubator.apache.org list. The intention is to give Ant a
>>> starting point for the discussions here. It's up to the Stratos community to
>>> ensure the experiement does not limit the project in any way and up to Ant
>>> to drive the experiment for the IPMC. Naturally, the IPMC mentors will be a
>>> very important part of defining the model and feeding back on the experiment
>>> to the IPMC. I'll be lad to help evaluate as an IPMC member too.
>>>
>>> Chris' original skeleton proposal is at [1]. This outlines who is
>>> responsible for what in the new model. I'll remind the team that the board
>>> has not discussed the proposals here and a number of board members have
>>> expressed concern about it, while a couple are actively pushing for it.
>>>
>>> The following specific questions were raised during discussions. These
>>> will need to be addressed in any proposal.
>>>
>>> # Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the board?
>>>
>>> This is perhaps the biggest potential area for pushback is moving
>>> oversight for the project to the board. Going to board certainly bypasses
>>> the problem of the IPMC often getting in the way of efficient process but it
>>> also removes the valuable input that some members of the IPMC often provide.
>>> Furthermore, should there be a problem it means it is the board that must
>>> fix the problem. Podling mentoring is not, traditionally, a role the board
>>> has ever taken on (fixing broken communities is not the same as mentoring
>>> fledgling communities).
>>>
>>> Note that one Director explicitly stated that he will vote -1 on any
>>> proposal that has a "podling" reporting directly to the board. This doesn't
>>> mean it won't be approved by the board, but it does mean it will be
>>> rigorously discussed.
>>>
>>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins?
>>>
>>> We dodged this question in the discussion thread by saying we'd go to
>>> podling status first. I guess defining this is part of defining the scope of
>>> the experiment.
>>>
>>> # What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in
>>> good graces?
>>>
>>> Here I suggested the criteria would be the same as a TLP. The problem is
>>> understanding whether we have that documented anywhere. The IPMC has
>>> addiitonal requirements (e.g. keep the meta-data up-to-date) whilst the
>>> board has, for the last 12 months or so, been pushing to have TLPs provide
>>> some of the same meta-data (e.g. last release date, last committer addition,
>>> last PMC addition).
>>>
>>> I suggest trying to come up with using the same criteria for TLPs,
>>> podlings and pTLPs. Where podlings will have a lower set f expectations
>>> (i.e. no need to have voted in any committers yet, pTLPs have voted in a
>>> committer in the last six months but may not have done an approved release
>>> and TLPs should have a fairly regular flow of committers and releases). Note
>>> these "metrics" ought not be fixed, they should be seen as guidelines. A
>>> project with no recent releases that continues to report and answer user
>>> queries may just be mature, for example.
>>>
>>> One measure can be the pTLP PMC membership. Initially it would be only
>>> the project mentors and champion. Over time active committers from the
>>> initial committer list are voted into the PMC (recognising merit). So we
>>> then have a possible measure, if there are 3 members of the pTLP from the
>>> initial committer list then there are now sufficient binding votes for the
>>> project to operate as a TLP.
>>>
>>> While writing this I realised that we might want to propose an interim
>>> step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a podling, move to pTLP when
>>> certain criteria are met (e.g. >3 active binding votes) and then TLP. I've
>>> not thought this through, just an idea you might consider.
>>>
>>> Another commentator observed that "It would probably be good to be clear
>>> on what are the exact characteristics that make this podling pTLP worthy for
>>> the future. For example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks." - a good
>>> observation. The danger here is creating an "us" and "them" environment.
>>> Perhaps the podling -> pTLP -> TLP idea resolves this - not sure.
>>>
>>> # What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces?
>>>
>>> I don't see this as being any different from a TLP. For a TLP the board
>>> says "fix it", if it isn't fixed they clear the decks and invite the
>>> remaining PMC to fix it. If it still isn't fixed it gets axed. What needs to
>>> be defined is who provides these "fix it" ultimatums and when.
>>>
>>> Please be *very* careful here. When we set up the IPMC we said the IPMC
>>> would do this - that's the main failure point now. It is mob rule. If a pTLP
>>> reports to board then it's easy, but if reporting to the IPMC it is harder.
>>>
>>> Note, a Director said " the Board will need a *definition* of
>>> probation. This is more than just a wiki page. I believe it needs to
>>> be a page laid down in www.a.o/dev/ that defines the constraints laid
>>> down upon a "pTLP"" I believe answering the above question will provide
>>> this.
>>>
>>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes?
>>>
>>> Here I don't see any reason for it to be different to podling graduation
>>> (proven ability to be open to new community members, properly vetted
>>> release).
>>>
>>> # How do we maintain the "podling" brand?
>>>
>>> People are familiar with the concept of a podling. The press understands
>>> the difference between a TLP and a podling. We must not lose this
>>> distinction. The Apache brand is valuable because of our high quality bar.
>>> If we dilute that quality by allowing projects to claim they are official
>>> before they understand what is required of an ASF project we run the risk of
>>> damaging the brand for all projects.
>>>
>>> So there you go. I hope I've done a reasonable job of summarizing a 55+
>>> mail thread.
>>>
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
>> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
>> email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 |
>> +1 650 265 8311
>> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>>
>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
> email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
> 650 265 8311
> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>
> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by Marlon Pierce <ma...@iu.edu>.
+1 from me for these comments from Suresh. Getting releases together in
the Apache way is an important hurdle, as is getting the repos cleaned up.
Marlon
[Most of the thread deleted]
> Hi All,
>
> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing lot of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and jira. Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking forward to see the progress: getting a release right with properly formulated license and notice files (especially for convenience binaries which bundle third party dependencies) and see working progress in removing dependence on ws02 repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are not coming from maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid. Essentially the parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and remove all the repos here.
>
> Suresh
>
> [1] - https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD
>
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com>.
Personally I am not for any extra process :-). So if the pTLP process is an
extra burden at this point lets not go there.
Sanjiva.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> Noah expresses it the way I see it. The purpose of taking the interim step
> (which was intended to be very short) was to avoid the IPMC blocking any
> useful discussion through sheer size. Since Stratos is just a release away
> from graduation it would seem a waste for *this* community to discuss pTLP
> when it can no longer benefit from it (yes trademark search is needed but
> that's usually a couple of days work).
>
> Of course, the speed of graduation is indicative of the fact that this was
> an ideal candidate for pTLP so we have that as a useful data point to take
> back to the IPMC (especially if the first release from this project is
> approved by the IPMC without change).
>
> Having said all that, I am not a mentor and more importantly I am not an
> active member of the community. My only intention is to say I (personally)
> no longer have any expectations with respect to the pTLP experiment within
> this project. It's up to the community first and mentors second to decide
> which path to take.
>
> Ross
>
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Senior Technology Evangelist
> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 August 2013 19:10, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> My original understanding was that the podling would start as a pTLP.
>> That "pTLP" was a category of podling, and graduating would be the point
>> where we remove the "p". It does seem a little strange to go from podling
>> -> pTLP -> TLP. I think we started out this way to expedite getting started
>> with Stratos. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Might be missing/forgetting
>> context.) But perhaps for the next attempt, we go straight to pTLP?
>>
>>
>> On 8 August 2013 09:32, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Heh, well that wasn't quite the response i was expecting.
>>>
>>> From all the previous discussions around pTLPs we know there are some
>>> who really don't like the idea, i don't want this to turn into another big
>>> argument so I've been trying to think of ways this could happen with
>>> minimum of fuss. In the email at the start of this thread a suggestion was
>>> "propose an interim step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a
>>> podling, move to pTLP when certain criteria are met". I like that, but one
>>> problem is there is some baggage around the word "pTLP".
>>>
>>> A problem with starting the pTLP experiment from a podling is always
>>> going to be whats the difference between becoming a pTLP or just
>>> graduating, so a better understanding of that will be helpful (for me
>>> anyway) - is there something that has been done already since Stratos has
>>> been a podling that now means a pTLP makes less sense? One of those things
>>> might be the trademark search, but thats not yet been done for Stratos.
>>>
>>> Doing a release is being discussed but thats one of the more problematic
>>> activities while in the Incubator and can potentially drag on and on, so
>>> finding a way out before that would be good. Either via a pTLP or just
>>> trying for graduation and arguing that the high number of existing ASF
>>> people involved means the release will still be properly vetted even
>>> outside of the Incubator. But again that just brings me back to whats the
>>> difference to becoming a pTLP or just graduating?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler <
>>> rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole point of using Stratos as a test case for the probationary
>>>> TLP idea was to provide a vehicle for those who felt this was viable route
>>>> to incubation to demonstrate how it would work. Specifically it was
>>>> intended to be an opportunity to start to answer the concerns that I, and
>>>> others, raised about skipping the IPMC altogether.
>>>>
>>>> However, as Ant and Suresh point out, in the more than six weeks since
>>>> I summarized the discussions during the proposal phase the Stratos project
>>>> has done almost all it needs to graduate.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Ant that at this point it makes more sense for mentors to
>>>> spend their time finishing incubation and graduate the project as a
>>>> standard podling.
>>>>
>>>> Chris and anyone else who support the pTLP idea can take the outline
>>>> process I pulled together from our earlier discussions (summarized at the
>>>> start of this thread) and apply them to some other project as their time
>>>> allows. It is too late to do it here. Stratos should not have to go through
>>>> the pain of defining a new process unless it brings benefit to the project
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>>> Senior Technology Evangelist
>>>> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
>>>> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7 August 2013 13:16, Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the
>>>>> background. (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my
>>>>> mind, a probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the
>>>>> Board. And dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss
>>>>> before bringing an idea to the Board.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
>>>>> > discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
>>>>> > subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubatorwouldn't
>>>>> > be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
>>>>> > least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Ok lets do it here then.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be
>>>>> the differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements
>>>>> are documented here:
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
>>>>> >
>>>>> > With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF
>>>>> committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for
>>>>> automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is
>>>>> left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be
>>>>> checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go
>>>>> through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats
>>>>> done then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the
>>>>> board.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a
>>>>> goal of Stratos here?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > …ant
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ant,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am
>>>>> seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with
>>>>> Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a
>>>>> wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into
>>>>> graduation, which I agree is only few steps away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing
>>>>> lot of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and
>>>>> jira. Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking
>>>>> forward to see the progress: getting a release right with properly
>>>>> formulated license and notice files (especially for convenience binaries
>>>>> which bundle third party dependencies) and see working progress in removing
>>>>> dependence on ws02 repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are
>>>>> not coming from maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid.
>>>>> Essentially the parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and
>>>>> remove all the repos here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suresh
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] -
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>>
>
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
650 265 8311
blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Noah expresses it the way I see it. The purpose of taking the interim step
(which was intended to be very short) was to avoid the IPMC blocking any
useful discussion through sheer size. Since Stratos is just a release away
from graduation it would seem a waste for *this* community to discuss pTLP
when it can no longer benefit from it (yes trademark search is needed but
that's usually a couple of days work).
Of course, the speed of graduation is indicative of the fact that this was
an ideal candidate for pTLP so we have that as a useful data point to take
back to the IPMC (especially if the first release from this project is
approved by the IPMC without change).
Having said all that, I am not a mentor and more importantly I am not an
active member of the community. My only intention is to say I (personally)
no longer have any expectations with respect to the pTLP experiment within
this project. It's up to the community first and mentors second to decide
which path to take.
Ross
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Senior Technology Evangelist
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
On 11 August 2013 19:10, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> My original understanding was that the podling would start as a pTLP. That
> "pTLP" was a category of podling, and graduating would be the point where
> we remove the "p". It does seem a little strange to go from podling -> pTLP
> -> TLP. I think we started out this way to expedite getting started with
> Stratos. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Might be missing/forgetting context.)
> But perhaps for the next attempt, we go straight to pTLP?
>
>
> On 8 August 2013 09:32, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Heh, well that wasn't quite the response i was expecting.
>>
>> From all the previous discussions around pTLPs we know there are some who
>> really don't like the idea, i don't want this to turn into another big
>> argument so I've been trying to think of ways this could happen with
>> minimum of fuss. In the email at the start of this thread a suggestion was
>> "propose an interim step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a
>> podling, move to pTLP when certain criteria are met". I like that, but one
>> problem is there is some baggage around the word "pTLP".
>>
>> A problem with starting the pTLP experiment from a podling is always
>> going to be whats the difference between becoming a pTLP or just
>> graduating, so a better understanding of that will be helpful (for me
>> anyway) - is there something that has been done already since Stratos has
>> been a podling that now means a pTLP makes less sense? One of those things
>> might be the trademark search, but thats not yet been done for Stratos.
>>
>> Doing a release is being discussed but thats one of the more problematic
>> activities while in the Incubator and can potentially drag on and on, so
>> finding a way out before that would be good. Either via a pTLP or just
>> trying for graduation and arguing that the high number of existing ASF
>> people involved means the release will still be properly vetted even
>> outside of the Incubator. But again that just brings me back to whats the
>> difference to becoming a pTLP or just graduating?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The whole point of using Stratos as a test case for the probationary TLP
>>> idea was to provide a vehicle for those who felt this was viable route to
>>> incubation to demonstrate how it would work. Specifically it was intended
>>> to be an opportunity to start to answer the concerns that I, and others,
>>> raised about skipping the IPMC altogether.
>>>
>>> However, as Ant and Suresh point out, in the more than six weeks since I
>>> summarized the discussions during the proposal phase the Stratos project
>>> has done almost all it needs to graduate.
>>>
>>> I agree with Ant that at this point it makes more sense for mentors to
>>> spend their time finishing incubation and graduate the project as a
>>> standard podling.
>>>
>>> Chris and anyone else who support the pTLP idea can take the outline
>>> process I pulled together from our earlier discussions (summarized at the
>>> start of this thread) and apply them to some other project as their time
>>> allows. It is too late to do it here. Stratos should not have to go through
>>> the pain of defining a new process unless it brings benefit to the project
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Senior Technology Evangelist
>>> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
>>> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 August 2013 13:16, Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the
>>>> background. (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my
>>>> mind, a probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the
>>>> Board. And dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss
>>>> before bringing an idea to the Board.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
>>>> > discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
>>>> > subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
>>>> > be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
>>>> > least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ok lets do it here then.
>>>> >
>>>> > One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be
>>>> the differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating.
>>>> >
>>>> > Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements
>>>> are documented here:
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
>>>> >
>>>> > With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF
>>>> committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for
>>>> automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is
>>>> left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be
>>>> checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go
>>>> through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats
>>>> done then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the
>>>> board.
>>>> >
>>>> > I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a
>>>> goal of Stratos here?
>>>> >
>>>> > …ant
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ant,
>>>>
>>>> This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am
>>>> seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with
>>>> Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a
>>>> wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into
>>>> graduation, which I agree is only few steps away.
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing
>>>> lot of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and
>>>> jira. Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking
>>>> forward to see the progress: getting a release right with properly
>>>> formulated license and notice files (especially for convenience binaries
>>>> which bundle third party dependencies) and see working progress in removing
>>>> dependence on ws02 repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are
>>>> not coming from maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid.
>>>> Essentially the parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and
>>>> remove all the repos here.
>>>>
>>>> Suresh
>>>>
>>>> [1] -
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
My original understanding was that the podling would start as a pTLP. That
"pTLP" was a category of podling, and graduating would be the point where
we remove the "p". It does seem a little strange to go from podling -> pTLP
-> TLP. I think we started out this way to expedite getting started with
Stratos. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Might be missing/forgetting context.)
But perhaps for the next attempt, we go straight to pTLP?
On 8 August 2013 09:32, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, well that wasn't quite the response i was expecting.
>
> From all the previous discussions around pTLPs we know there are some who
> really don't like the idea, i don't want this to turn into another big
> argument so I've been trying to think of ways this could happen with
> minimum of fuss. In the email at the start of this thread a suggestion was
> "propose an interim step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a
> podling, move to pTLP when certain criteria are met". I like that, but one
> problem is there is some baggage around the word "pTLP".
>
> A problem with starting the pTLP experiment from a podling is always going
> to be whats the difference between becoming a pTLP or just graduating, so a
> better understanding of that will be helpful (for me anyway) - is there
> something that has been done already since Stratos has been a podling that
> now means a pTLP makes less sense? One of those things might be the
> trademark search, but thats not yet been done for Stratos.
>
> Doing a release is being discussed but thats one of the more problematic
> activities while in the Incubator and can potentially drag on and on, so
> finding a way out before that would be good. Either via a pTLP or just
> trying for graduation and arguing that the high number of existing ASF
> people involved means the release will still be properly vetted even
> outside of the Incubator. But again that just brings me back to whats the
> difference to becoming a pTLP or just graduating?
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>
>> The whole point of using Stratos as a test case for the probationary TLP
>> idea was to provide a vehicle for those who felt this was viable route to
>> incubation to demonstrate how it would work. Specifically it was intended
>> to be an opportunity to start to answer the concerns that I, and others,
>> raised about skipping the IPMC altogether.
>>
>> However, as Ant and Suresh point out, in the more than six weeks since I
>> summarized the discussions during the proposal phase the Stratos project
>> has done almost all it needs to graduate.
>>
>> I agree with Ant that at this point it makes more sense for mentors to
>> spend their time finishing incubation and graduate the project as a
>> standard podling.
>>
>> Chris and anyone else who support the pTLP idea can take the outline
>> process I pulled together from our earlier discussions (summarized at the
>> start of this thread) and apply them to some other project as their time
>> allows. It is too late to do it here. Stratos should not have to go through
>> the pain of defining a new process unless it brings benefit to the project
>> itself.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Senior Technology Evangelist
>> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
>> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 August 2013 13:16, Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the
>>> background. (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my
>>> mind, a probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the
>>> Board. And dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss
>>> before bringing an idea to the Board.
>>> >
>>> > On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
>>> > discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
>>> > subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
>>> > be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
>>> > least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>>> >
>>> > Ok lets do it here then.
>>> >
>>> > One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be
>>> the differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating.
>>> >
>>> > Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements
>>> are documented here:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
>>> >
>>> > With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF
>>> committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for
>>> automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is
>>> left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be
>>> checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go
>>> through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats done
>>> then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the board.
>>> >
>>> > I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a
>>> goal of Stratos here?
>>> >
>>> > …ant
>>>
>>> Hi Ant,
>>>
>>> This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am
>>> seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with
>>> Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a
>>> wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into
>>> graduation, which I agree is only few steps away.
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing
>>> lot of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and
>>> jira. Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking
>>> forward to see the progress: getting a release right with properly
>>> formulated license and notice files (especially for convenience binaries
>>> which bundle third party dependencies) and see working progress in removing
>>> dependence on ws02 repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are
>>> not coming from maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid.
>>> Essentially the parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and
>>> remove all the repos here.
>>>
>>> Suresh
>>>
>>> [1] -
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Heh, well that wasn't quite the response i was expecting.
>From all the previous discussions around pTLPs we know there are some who
really don't like the idea, i don't want this to turn into another big
argument so I've been trying to think of ways this could happen with
minimum of fuss. In the email at the start of this thread a suggestion was
"propose an interim step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a
podling, move to pTLP when certain criteria are met". I like that, but one
problem is there is some baggage around the word "pTLP".
A problem with starting the pTLP experiment from a podling is always going
to be whats the difference between becoming a pTLP or just graduating, so a
better understanding of that will be helpful (for me anyway) - is there
something that has been done already since Stratos has been a podling that
now means a pTLP makes less sense? One of those things might be the
trademark search, but thats not yet been done for Stratos.
Doing a release is being discussed but thats one of the more problematic
activities while in the Incubator and can potentially drag on and on, so
finding a way out before that would be good. Either via a pTLP or just
trying for graduation and arguing that the high number of existing ASF
people involved means the release will still be properly vetted even
outside of the Incubator. But again that just brings me back to whats the
difference to becoming a pTLP or just graduating?
...ant
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> The whole point of using Stratos as a test case for the probationary TLP
> idea was to provide a vehicle for those who felt this was viable route to
> incubation to demonstrate how it would work. Specifically it was intended
> to be an opportunity to start to answer the concerns that I, and others,
> raised about skipping the IPMC altogether.
>
> However, as Ant and Suresh point out, in the more than six weeks since I
> summarized the discussions during the proposal phase the Stratos project
> has done almost all it needs to graduate.
>
> I agree with Ant that at this point it makes more sense for mentors to
> spend their time finishing incubation and graduate the project as a
> standard podling.
>
> Chris and anyone else who support the pTLP idea can take the outline
> process I pulled together from our earlier discussions (summarized at the
> start of this thread) and apply them to some other project as their time
> allows. It is too late to do it here. Stratos should not have to go through
> the pain of defining a new process unless it brings benefit to the project
> itself.
>
> Ross
>
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Senior Technology Evangelist
> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 August 2013 13:16, Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the
>> background. (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my mind,
>> a probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the Board. And
>> dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss before bringing
>> an idea to the Board.
>> >
>> > On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
>> > discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
>> > subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
>> > be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
>> > least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>> >
>> > Ok lets do it here then.
>> >
>> > One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be the
>> differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating.
>> >
>> > Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements
>> are documented here:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
>> >
>> > With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF
>> committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for
>> automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is
>> left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be
>> checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go
>> through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats done
>> then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the board.
>> >
>> > I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a
>> goal of Stratos here?
>> >
>> > …ant
>>
>> Hi Ant,
>>
>> This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am
>> seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with
>> Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a
>> wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into
>> graduation, which I agree is only few steps away.
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing lot
>> of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and jira.
>> Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking forward to
>> see the progress: getting a release right with properly formulated license
>> and notice files (especially for convenience binaries which bundle third
>> party dependencies) and see working progress in removing dependence on ws02
>> repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are not coming from
>> maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid. Essentially the
>> parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and remove all the
>> repos here.
>>
>> Suresh
>>
>> [1] -
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
The whole point of using Stratos as a test case for the probationary TLP
idea was to provide a vehicle for those who felt this was viable route to
incubation to demonstrate how it would work. Specifically it was intended
to be an opportunity to start to answer the concerns that I, and others,
raised about skipping the IPMC altogether.
However, as Ant and Suresh point out, in the more than six weeks since I
summarized the discussions during the proposal phase the Stratos project
has done almost all it needs to graduate.
I agree with Ant that at this point it makes more sense for mentors to
spend their time finishing incubation and graduate the project as a
standard podling.
Chris and anyone else who support the pTLP idea can take the outline
process I pulled together from our earlier discussions (summarized at the
start of this thread) and apply them to some other project as their time
allows. It is too late to do it here. Stratos should not have to go through
the pain of defining a new process unless it brings benefit to the project
itself.
Ross
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Senior Technology Evangelist
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
On 7 August 2013 13:16, Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the background.
> (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my mind, a
> probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the Board. And
> dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss before bringing an
> idea to the Board.
> >
> > On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
> > discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
> > subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
> > be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
> > least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
> >
> > Ok lets do it here then.
> >
> > One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be the
> differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating.
> >
> > Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements are
> documented here:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
> >
> > With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF
> committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for
> automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is
> left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be
> checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go
> through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats done
> then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the board.
> >
> > I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a
> goal of Stratos here?
> >
> > …ant
>
> Hi Ant,
>
> This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am
> seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with
> Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a
> wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into
> graduation, which I agree is only few steps away.
>
> Hi All,
>
> I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing lot
> of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and jira.
> Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking forward to
> see the progress: getting a release right with properly formulated license
> and notice files (especially for convenience binaries which bundle third
> party dependencies) and see working progress in removing dependence on ws02
> repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are not coming from
> maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid. Essentially the
> parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and remove all the
> repos here.
>
> Suresh
>
> [1] -
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org>.
On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:46 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the background. (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my mind, a probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the Board. And dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss before bringing an idea to the Board.
>
> On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
> discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
> subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
> be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
> least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>
> Ok lets do it here then.
>
> One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be the differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating.
>
> Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements are documented here: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
>
> With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF committers, PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for automatically ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is left to do on the graduation requirements list. The main one would be checking the "Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go through: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats done then a regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the board.
>
> I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a goal of Stratos here?
>
> …ant
Hi Ant,
This is exactly I am having the trouble getting my head around. I am seeing this as two separate issues, one furthering the topic of pTLP with Stratos as the use case. This will be a good guinea pig project with a wealth of exiting ASF and PMC members/committers. Second quick leap into graduation, which I agree is only few steps away.
Hi All,
I see the project is doing very well in engaging the community, doing lot of information sharing and conducting business in mailing lists and jira. Either pTLP or graduation, the outstanding tasks I am looking forward to see the progress: getting a release right with properly formulated license and notice files (especially for convenience binaries which bundle third party dependencies) and see working progress in removing dependence on ws02 repositories. I see now a big list of dependencies are not coming from maven central but from wso2 repos this is good to avoid. Essentially the parent pom [1] should be able to point to apache parent and remove all the repos here.
Suresh
[1] - https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-stratos.git;a=blob_plain;f=pom.xml;hb=HEAD
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the background.
> (so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my mind, a
> probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the Board. And
> dev@ is the community, so is the best place to discuss before bringing an
> idea to the Board.
> On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
>> discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
>> subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
>> be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
>> least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>>
>>
Ok lets do it here then.
One of the things i'm stuggling with at the moment is what would be the
differences with Stratos becoming a pTLP compared with just graduating.
Looking at graduating, the Incubator minimum graduation requirements are
documented here:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
With Stratos having so many of its contributors be existing ASF committers,
PMC members, or ASF members it would be easy to argue for automatically
ticking off many of those requirements and then not much is left to do on
the graduation requirements list. The main one would be checking the
"Stratos" name for trademark issues, eg someone needs to go through:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html. Once thats done then a
regular resolution for graduation could be submitted to the board.
I know that wouldn't so much help progress the pTLP topic, is that a goal
of Stratos here?
...ant
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
I agree with Greg.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 1:33 AM
To: Ant Elder <an...@gmail.com>
Cc: jpluser <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
"dev@stratos.incubator.apache.org" <de...@stratos.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
>Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the background.
>(so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my mind, a
>probationary TLP is a conversation between a community and the Board. And
>dev@ is the community, so is the best
> place to discuss before bringing an idea to the Board.
>On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
>discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
>subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
>be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
>least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>
> ...ant
>
>On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com>
>wrote:
>> I'm happy to drive the proposal .. can we do it on dev@? I'm not on the
>> PPMC.
>>
>> If so, Ant, lets catch up a bit one of these so we can start a Wiki
>> proposal. Maybe target August board meeting at this point?
>>
>> Sanjiva.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Ross Gardler
>><rg...@opendirective.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There needs to be a concrete proposal from this PPMC and its mentors,
>>>so
>>> no we are not on track.
>>>
>>> However, Ant did mail me offlist a few days ago to let me know he's
>>>been
>>> swamped but does plan to get to this soon.
>>>
>>> Of course the discussion doesn't need to be led by Ant.
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>>> Sent: 7/20/2013 9:30 PM
>>> To: dev
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
>>>
>>> Looks like there was no follow-up to this. Ross are you still on track
>>>to
>>> put this forward?
>>>
>>> Sanjiva.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ross Gardler
>>><rg...@opendirective.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> During the proposal phase for the Stratos podling I floated the idea
>>>>of
>>>> the IPMC using the podling to experiment with a more streamlined
>>>>incubation
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> It is not my intention to drive this experiment. Ant Elder expressed a
>>>> desire to explore the idea during recent discussions among the IPMC.
>>>>Whilst
>>>> we were drawing up the Stratos proposal I asked Ant if he would be
>>>>willing
>>>> to lead the experiment. He agreed.
>>>>
>>>> In this mail I will summarize the relevant parts of the discussion
>>>>thread
>>>> on the general@incubator.apache.org list. The intention is to give
>>>>Ant a
>>>> starting point for the discussions here. It's up to the Stratos
>>>>community to
>>>> ensure the experiement does not limit the project in any way and up
>>>>to Ant
>>>> to drive the experiment for the IPMC. Naturally, the IPMC mentors
>>>>will be a
>>>> very important part of defining the model and feeding back on the
>>>>experiment
>>>> to the IPMC. I'll be lad to help evaluate as an IPMC member too.
>>>>
>>>> Chris' original skeleton proposal is at [1]. This outlines who is
>>>> responsible for what in the new model. I'll remind the team that the
>>>>board
>>>> has not discussed the proposals here and a number of board members
>>>>have
>>>> expressed concern about it, while a couple are actively pushing for
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>> The following specific questions were raised during discussions. These
>>>> will need to be addressed in any proposal.
>>>>
>>>> # Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the
>>>>board?
>>>>
>>>> This is perhaps the biggest potential area for pushback is moving
>>>> oversight for the project to the board. Going to board certainly
>>>>bypasses
>>>> the problem of the IPMC often getting in the way of efficient process
>>>>but it
>>>> also removes the valuable input that some members of the IPMC often
>>>>provide.
>>>> Furthermore, should there be a problem it means it is the board that
>>>>must
>>>> fix the problem. Podling mentoring is not, traditionally, a role the
>>>>board
>>>> has ever taken on (fixing broken communities is not the same as
>>>>mentoring
>>>> fledgling communities).
>>>>
>>>> Note that one Director explicitly stated that he will vote -1 on any
>>>> proposal that has a "podling" reporting directly to the board. This
>>>>doesn't
>>>> mean it won't be approved by the board, but it does mean it will be
>>>> rigorously discussed.
>>>>
>>>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins?
>>>>
>>>> We dodged this question in the discussion thread by saying we'd go to
>>>> podling status first. I guess defining this is part of defining the
>>>>scope of
>>>> the experiment.
>>>>
>>>> # What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay
>>>>in
>>>> good graces?
>>>>
>>>> Here I suggested the criteria would be the same as a TLP. The problem
>>>>is
>>>> understanding whether we have that documented anywhere. The IPMC has
>>>> addiitonal requirements (e.g. keep the meta-data up-to-date) whilst
>>>>the
>>>> board has, for the last 12 months or so, been pushing to have TLPs
>>>>provide
>>>> some of the same meta-data (e.g. last release date, last committer
>>>>addition,
>>>> last PMC addition).
>>>>
>>>> I suggest trying to come up with using the same criteria for TLPs,
>>>> podlings and pTLPs. Where podlings will have a lower set f
>>>>expectations
>>>> (i.e. no need to have voted in any committers yet, pTLPs have voted
>>>>in a
>>>> committer in the last six months but may not have done an approved
>>>>release
>>>> and TLPs should have a fairly regular flow of committers and
>>>>releases). Note
>>>> these "metrics" ought not be fixed, they should be seen as
>>>>guidelines. A
>>>> project with no recent releases that continues to report and answer
>>>>user
>>>> queries may just be mature, for example.
>>>>
>>>> One measure can be the pTLP PMC membership. Initially it would be only
>>>> the project mentors and champion. Over time active committers from the
>>>> initial committer list are voted into the PMC (recognising merit). So
>>>>we
>>>> then have a possible measure, if there are 3 members of the pTLP from
>>>>the
>>>> initial committer list then there are now sufficient binding votes
>>>>for the
>>>> project to operate as a TLP.
>>>>
>>>> While writing this I realised that we might want to propose an interim
>>>> step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a podling, move to pTLP
>>>>when
>>>> certain criteria are met (e.g. >3 active binding votes) and then TLP.
>>>>I've
>>>> not thought this through, just an idea you might consider.
>>>>
>>>> Another commentator observed that "It would probably be good to be
>>>>clear
>>>> on what are the exact characteristics that make this podling pTLP
>>>>worthy for
>>>> the future. For example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks." -
>>>>a good
>>>> observation. The danger here is creating an "us" and "them"
>>>>environment.
>>>> Perhaps the podling -> pTLP -> TLP idea resolves this - not sure.
>>>>
>>>> # What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see this as being any different from a TLP. For a TLP the
>>>>board
>>>> says "fix it", if it isn't fixed they clear the decks and invite the
>>>> remaining PMC to fix it. If it still isn't fixed it gets axed. What
>>>>needs to
>>>> be defined is who provides these "fix it" ultimatums and when.
>>>>
>>>> Please be *very* careful here. When we set up the IPMC we said the
>>>>IPMC
>>>> would do this - that's the main failure point now. It is mob rule. If
>>>>a pTLP
>>>> reports to board then it's easy, but if reporting to the IPMC it is
>>>>harder.
>>>>
>>>> Note, a Director said " the Board will need a *definition* of
>>>> probation. This is more than just a wiki page. I believe it needs to
>>>> be a page laid down in www.a.o/dev/ that defines the constraints laid
>>>> down upon a "pTLP"" I believe answering the above question will
>>>>provide
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes?
>>>>
>>>> Here I don't see any reason for it to be different to podling
>>>>graduation
>>>> (proven ability to be open to new community members, properly vetted
>>>> release).
>>>>
>>>> # How do we maintain the "podling" brand?
>>>>
>>>> People are familiar with the concept of a podling. The press
>>>>understands
>>>> the difference between a TLP and a podling. We must not lose this
>>>> distinction. The Apache brand is valuable because of our high quality
>>>>bar.
>>>> If we dilute that quality by allowing projects to claim they are
>>>>official
>>>> before they understand what is required of an ASF project we run the
>>>>risk of
>>>> damaging the brand for all projects.
>>>>
>>>> So there you go. I hope I've done a reasonable job of summarizing a
>>>>55+
>>>> mail thread.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck!
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
><http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
>>> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
>>> email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone:
>+94 11 763 9614 <tel:%2B94%2011%20763%209614>; cell:
>+94 77 787 6880 <tel:%2B94%2077%20787%206880> |
>>> +1 650 265 8311 <tel:%2B1%20650%20265%208311>
>>> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>>>
>>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
>> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
>> email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone:
>+94 11 763 9614 <tel:%2B94%2011%20763%209614>; cell:
>+94 77 787 6880 <tel:%2B94%2077%20787%206880> | +1
>> 650 265 8311 <tel:650%20265%208311>
>> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
>>
>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Ant. I'm on a phone right now, and have not read the background.
(so, terse response). But the dev@ list is fine. In my mind, a probationary
TLP is a conversation between a community and the Board. And dev@ is the
community, so is the best place to discuss before bringing an idea to the
Board.
On Aug 6, 2013 1:10 AM, "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering if the Stratos dev list is the best place to be
> discussing this, there are probably interested people who aren't
> subscribed or following here, though maybe general@incubator wouldn't
> be ideal either. I've cc'd Chris and Greg in this email so they at
> least know its here as they've expressed interest in the past.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wso2.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm happy to drive the proposal .. can we do it on dev@? I'm not on the
> > PPMC.
> >
> > If so, Ant, lets catch up a bit one of these so we can start a Wiki
> > proposal. Maybe target August board meeting at this point?
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Ross Gardler <
> rgardler@opendirective.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> There needs to be a concrete proposal from this PPMC and its mentors, so
> >> no we are not on track.
> >>
> >> However, Ant did mail me offlist a few days ago to let me know he's been
> >> swamped but does plan to get to this soon.
> >>
> >> Of course the discussion doesn't need to be led by Ant.
> >>
> >> Ross
> >>
> >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> >> Sent: 7/20/2013 9:30 PM
> >> To: dev
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
> >>
> >> Looks like there was no follow-up to this. Ross are you still on track
> to
> >> put this forward?
> >>
> >> Sanjiva.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ross Gardler <
> rgardler@opendirective.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> During the proposal phase for the Stratos podling I floated the idea of
> >>> the IPMC using the podling to experiment with a more streamlined
> incubation
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>> It is not my intention to drive this experiment. Ant Elder expressed a
> >>> desire to explore the idea during recent discussions among the IPMC.
> Whilst
> >>> we were drawing up the Stratos proposal I asked Ant if he would be
> willing
> >>> to lead the experiment. He agreed.
> >>>
> >>> In this mail I will summarize the relevant parts of the discussion
> thread
> >>> on the general@incubator.apache.org list. The intention is to give
> Ant a
> >>> starting point for the discussions here. It's up to the Stratos
> community to
> >>> ensure the experiement does not limit the project in any way and up to
> Ant
> >>> to drive the experiment for the IPMC. Naturally, the IPMC mentors will
> be a
> >>> very important part of defining the model and feeding back on the
> experiment
> >>> to the IPMC. I'll be lad to help evaluate as an IPMC member too.
> >>>
> >>> Chris' original skeleton proposal is at [1]. This outlines who is
> >>> responsible for what in the new model. I'll remind the team that the
> board
> >>> has not discussed the proposals here and a number of board members have
> >>> expressed concern about it, while a couple are actively pushing for it.
> >>>
> >>> The following specific questions were raised during discussions. These
> >>> will need to be addressed in any proposal.
> >>>
> >>> # Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the
> board?
> >>>
> >>> This is perhaps the biggest potential area for pushback is moving
> >>> oversight for the project to the board. Going to board certainly
> bypasses
> >>> the problem of the IPMC often getting in the way of efficient process
> but it
> >>> also removes the valuable input that some members of the IPMC often
> provide.
> >>> Furthermore, should there be a problem it means it is the board that
> must
> >>> fix the problem. Podling mentoring is not, traditionally, a role the
> board
> >>> has ever taken on (fixing broken communities is not the same as
> mentoring
> >>> fledgling communities).
> >>>
> >>> Note that one Director explicitly stated that he will vote -1 on any
> >>> proposal that has a "podling" reporting directly to the board. This
> doesn't
> >>> mean it won't be approved by the board, but it does mean it will be
> >>> rigorously discussed.
> >>>
> >>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins?
> >>>
> >>> We dodged this question in the discussion thread by saying we'd go to
> >>> podling status first. I guess defining this is part of defining the
> scope of
> >>> the experiment.
> >>>
> >>> # What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in
> >>> good graces?
> >>>
> >>> Here I suggested the criteria would be the same as a TLP. The problem
> is
> >>> understanding whether we have that documented anywhere. The IPMC has
> >>> addiitonal requirements (e.g. keep the meta-data up-to-date) whilst the
> >>> board has, for the last 12 months or so, been pushing to have TLPs
> provide
> >>> some of the same meta-data (e.g. last release date, last committer
> addition,
> >>> last PMC addition).
> >>>
> >>> I suggest trying to come up with using the same criteria for TLPs,
> >>> podlings and pTLPs. Where podlings will have a lower set f expectations
> >>> (i.e. no need to have voted in any committers yet, pTLPs have voted in
> a
> >>> committer in the last six months but may not have done an approved
> release
> >>> and TLPs should have a fairly regular flow of committers and
> releases). Note
> >>> these "metrics" ought not be fixed, they should be seen as guidelines.
> A
> >>> project with no recent releases that continues to report and answer
> user
> >>> queries may just be mature, for example.
> >>>
> >>> One measure can be the pTLP PMC membership. Initially it would be only
> >>> the project mentors and champion. Over time active committers from the
> >>> initial committer list are voted into the PMC (recognising merit). So
> we
> >>> then have a possible measure, if there are 3 members of the pTLP from
> the
> >>> initial committer list then there are now sufficient binding votes for
> the
> >>> project to operate as a TLP.
> >>>
> >>> While writing this I realised that we might want to propose an interim
> >>> step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a podling, move to pTLP
> when
> >>> certain criteria are met (e.g. >3 active binding votes) and then TLP.
> I've
> >>> not thought this through, just an idea you might consider.
> >>>
> >>> Another commentator observed that "It would probably be good to be
> clear
> >>> on what are the exact characteristics that make this podling pTLP
> worthy for
> >>> the future. For example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks." -
> a good
> >>> observation. The danger here is creating an "us" and "them"
> environment.
> >>> Perhaps the podling -> pTLP -> TLP idea resolves this - not sure.
> >>>
> >>> # What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces?
> >>>
> >>> I don't see this as being any different from a TLP. For a TLP the board
> >>> says "fix it", if it isn't fixed they clear the decks and invite the
> >>> remaining PMC to fix it. If it still isn't fixed it gets axed. What
> needs to
> >>> be defined is who provides these "fix it" ultimatums and when.
> >>>
> >>> Please be *very* careful here. When we set up the IPMC we said the IPMC
> >>> would do this - that's the main failure point now. It is mob rule. If
> a pTLP
> >>> reports to board then it's easy, but if reporting to the IPMC it is
> harder.
> >>>
> >>> Note, a Director said " the Board will need a *definition* of
> >>> probation. This is more than just a wiki page. I believe it needs to
> >>> be a page laid down in www.a.o/dev/ that defines the constraints laid
> >>> down upon a "pTLP"" I believe answering the above question will provide
> >>> this.
> >>>
> >>> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes?
> >>>
> >>> Here I don't see any reason for it to be different to podling
> graduation
> >>> (proven ability to be open to new community members, properly vetted
> >>> release).
> >>>
> >>> # How do we maintain the "podling" brand?
> >>>
> >>> People are familiar with the concept of a podling. The press
> understands
> >>> the difference between a TLP and a podling. We must not lose this
> >>> distinction. The Apache brand is valuable because of our high quality
> bar.
> >>> If we dilute that quality by allowing projects to claim they are
> official
> >>> before they understand what is required of an ASF project we run the
> risk of
> >>> damaging the brand for all projects.
> >>>
> >>> So there you go. I hope I've done a reasonable job of summarizing a 55+
> >>> mail thread.
> >>>
> >>> Good luck!
> >>>
> >>> Ross
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> >> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
> >> email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880|
> >> +1 650 265 8311
> >> blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
> >>
> >> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com/
> > email: sanjiva@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880| +1
> > 650 265 8311
> > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
> >
> > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
>