maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
document into a policy document.  Rather, some people are finding it a
useful
guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged.


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:35 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Caleb -
>
> I am glad that it is useful for your projects.
>
> I think that the use of it that you describe is valuable.
> It should be used as guidance and interpreted by the mentors for each
> podling.
>
> "These sort of metrics can be used to indicate health in this way or that"
> - this is different from "these specific metrics must be met".
>
> We can certainly articulate requirements but they should be more specific
> to behaving in accordance to "the apache way" then dictating very specific
> community decisions or milestones.
>
> As mentor training, guidelines, etc - this is quite valuable and should
> help in guiding podlings to graduation rather than deciding whether they
> graduate or not.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Caleb Welton <cw...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...
> >
> > Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
> > incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
> > useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
> > community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
> > development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
> > need to be moving towards.
> >
> > Especially starting with an established team working on close source
> > project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
> > entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
> > the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
> > help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
> > guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
> > encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
> > useful guidance.
> >
> > If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
> > suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are
> there
> > particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things
> that
> > are missing?
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Caleb
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> > >
> > > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> > > checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually
> > develop
> > > more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes
> checked.
> > >
> > > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> > natural
> > > growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> > > artificially.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> justin@erenkrantz.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> > > explain
> > > > why.
> > > >
> > > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > > > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > > > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > > > projects to complete.
> > > >
> > > > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > > > different.
> > > >
> > > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > > > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > > > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should
> be
> > > > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires
> from
> > > > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off
> is
> > > > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> ...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
> of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
> it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.

I took the tenor of the conversation as heading in a direction where
mentors would be expected to fill it out or the IPMC would stop any
graduation conversations.

If a podling chooses to voluntarily fill it out, great.  But, don't
put the burden on mentors to fill out some crazy paperwork.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-).

Yup. And that's why I felt like clarifying.

> It got shot down for many, many reasons.

Well, that depends on what 'it' is. But that's a different conversation ;-)

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-).
It got shot down for many, many reasons.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very
> nice
> > document into a policy document.
>
> To be fair, one offshoot of the 'undersigned' epic had that implication.
> It got shot down with 'trust the mentors' argument. And..
>
> > Rather, some people are finding it a useful
> > guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be
> encouraged.
>
> ...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
> of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
> it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
> document into a policy document.

To be fair, one offshoot of the 'undersigned' epic had that implication.
It got shot down with 'trust the mentors' argument. And..

> Rather, some people are finding it a useful
> guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged.

...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
> document into a policy document....

As a sidenote the maturity model is not "my" document. I did initiate
that effort but it's been greatly enhanced by contributions from
various people on the comdev list. There's a link to those discussions
at the top of https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
if you're curious.

-Bertrand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org