You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> on 2013/03/31 12:13:31 UTC
Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs
consensus)
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013, at 01:56 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
> > IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
> > monthly report and objecting to the failure to report 'failure' to the
> > board.
>
> "If your statement were true, then someone would make the assertions
> you're making."
>
> > If you want to change minds about this, you might need to come up
> > with some concrete evidence of actual failure: bad commits, bad doings on
> > mailing lists, etc.
>
> Is this a question of standing, where material harm needs to be
> demonstrated?
>
> The IPMC is needlessly inefficient and abusive of its podlings. Novel
> "compliance" mechanisms are literally invented and argued about on
> general@ during podlings' release votes.[1] The cultural clashes that
> Chris's proposal refers to generate huge amounts of traffic on
> general@ and private@, as ASF members argue the semantics of core
> concepts. And it's not just edge-case legal issues; some are as basic
> as the definition of "veto".
>
> These discussions create needless confusion and deeply resented churn
> for podlings. The asymmetry in power teaches submissiveness to ASF
> members, rather than independence and self-sufficiency. There are, in
> truth, *many* active interpretations of the Apache Way practiced
> across the ASF. Reconciling them is not the mission of the incubator.
> Putting esoteric debates on the critical path of new projects is
> absurd and harmful.
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/lFI
>
> > What the IPMC now does is use the shepherd process to compensate for mentor
> > weakness. It's not perfect. Under your plan, instead, the board would have
> > to cope, directly, with 'starter' projects suffering from inevitable
> > attrition -- or the Foundation would need to start many less projects, as
> > only those who could attract very strongly committed foundation members
> > could start.
>
> The incubator doesn't deal with this effectively, either. To take one
> example, Chukwa's "retirement" was a fiasco.
>
> > there are many possible
> > places to take the conversation if you start from the premise that no
> > variation on the existing scheme is workable. I personally don't know how,
> > organizationally, to reach that conclusion, especially insofar as the
> > recent disfunction is not about supervision, it's _merely_ about sorting
> > out who can be a member and thus a mentor.
>
> The recent discussion is about the mentor role. The ongoing
> dysfunction is about supervision, and the IPMC failing to discharge
> its purpose efficiently. It exists to put its podlings through a
> curriculum that transfers some cultural norms, makes podlings aware of
> resources, and establishes clean licensing. Even if it succeeds well
> enough not to be disbanded by the board, its inefficiency is worth
> correcting. -C
The incubator has the feel of the PRC before it was disbanded (actually,
it was split into trademarks/brand, fundraising and press). That split
made the structure match the territory, and all three areas have been
pretty quietly effective at what they do.
We need to find a similar transformation for the Incubator. This is what
many of the suggestions that have been floating are, in my view, trying
to address, we just don't yet have a suggestion that is garnering
sufficient collective support.
What we need is an effective way to reduce the number of people who are
'responsible' for the day to day running of the incubator. We need one
set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'. We need a
structure where the 'many' are happy to delegate responsibility to 'the
few'. We have that in press@, fundraising@ and trademarks@ (perhaps too
much so!!).
So, the question is, what models are there that will achieve this? Chris
has suggested disbanding the Incubator PMC. Ant has suggested mentors
leave the Incubator PMC, and the Incubator PMC become 'the few'. Ross
has suggested that the Incubator PMC votes a group of shepherds to be
'the few'.
It seems to me there are two principal roles that the Incubator has had
- one is to help define processes, and social mores. This, it could be
argued, has been done well enough - it doesn't take as much effort
anymore, and perhaps we have reached a point where it is not possible to
'define' it anymore. The second role is to provide 'oversight' or
'supervision', providing a layer above mentors to ensure that podlings
are progressing and that mentors are active. It is this latter role that
is still very much needed, as we would expect there to be more issues in
newer podlings than in established TLPs. It seems to me that the board
*wants* to delegate this responsibility to another committee.
To summarise. The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond
repair). We need as many mentors as we can get, and a smaller group of
people who are delegated responsibility for the incubator. The board
wants a group of folks to take responsibility for overseeing the early
life of communities at the ASF. These are, to my mind, the criteria that
we should be using to evaluate any suggestions as to how the incubator
should be structured. If it doesn't meet these, it won't float.
Judging the success of any new structure will be easy: does it create
peace and quiet (and more effective working) like the breakup of the PRC
did??
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard a few people say they "just want to mentor, without the rules
> discussion crap" (see ml). Thats perfectly OK. But what do we need them on
> the IPMC?
One of the chief responsibilities for a Mentor is performing oversight of the
podling's code base on behalf of the foundation. Until a podling graduates
and gets a resolution passed by the Board establishing a PMC, it is the _IPMC_
which is responsible for legal oversight of the code base.
A podling needs people who teach the social aspects of the Apache Way, but we
assume that the IPMC members we assign as Mentors are doing that in addition
to performing their legal role. Contributions by non-IPMC members are
welcome, but giving such people the title of "Mentor" only corrupts our
accounting mechanisms and makes it harder to detect when the Incubator is
failing to provide legal oversight of a code base for which it has assumed
responsibility.
> I believe we can give them binding votes without being on the IPMC.
Efforts to keep the IPMC pure and exclusive cause only harm.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> The Incubator has two acute, serious problems.
>
> 1. First releases are too hard.
No surprise. This is incredible hard to read:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
and contains 88 TODOs.
> 2. Mentor attrition.
>
> The first problem is being addressed by building consensus around clarified
> release approval criteria. The second problem is being addressed by making it
> easier to recruit outstanding podling contributors to serve on the IPMC.
If we make other people easier to join, we *need* to make a regular
health check on projects.
I already proposed the "miss to sign your reports 2x times and we ask
you if you are still there" process.
> In my view, the various radical approaches being proposed either do not help,
> actively hinder, or add a lot of work and uncertainty -- so for the time
> being, I'd rather work to improve the current system. I'll only join the
> revolution if the incremental improvements are blocked.
Being sceptic makes sense of course. Radical changes are coming with a risk.
That said, I totally appreciate what Upayavira wrote and bascially
support the idea of separating out mentors from the IPMC. I have heard
a few people say they "just want to mentor, without the rules
discussion crap" (see ml). Thats perfectly OK. But what do we need
them on the IPMC? The argument is, we want binding votes. I believe we
can give them binding votes without being on the IPMC.
We now seem to have 3/4 majority vote on new people. That helps with
easier recruiting. Now lets do the "miss to sign" process and actively
work on the release guide. If that doesn't help we can become more
radical.
Cheers
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote
vs consensus)
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 07:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > We need one set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'.
>
> Disenfranchising mentors and hoarding power within a small circle of IPMC
> aristocrats is both unworkable and hypocritical.
>
> * It is unworkable because the people who watch over the IP clearance
> process and subsequently endorse incubating releases must follow the
> podling day-to-day and must be empowered with binding votes.
> Superficial
> review by freelance IPMC members is useful but cannot substitute for
> close
> supervision.
> * It is hypocritical because the IPMC needs to recognize and reward
> merit if
> we expect podlings to do likewise.
>
> > The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond repair).
>
> I don't see the clashes in the IPMC's immediate past as arising from
> structural defects -- we experienced ordinary personnel issues which
> could
> have happened to any project. The IPMC's size wasn't even much a factor,
> since none of our dormant members played any part in prolonging the
> conflicts.
>
> > Judging the success of any new structure will be easy: does it create peace
> > and quiet (and more effective working) like the breakup of the PRC did??
>
> The Incubator has two acute, serious problems.
>
> 1. First releases are too hard.
> 2. Mentor attrition.
>
> The first problem is being addressed by building consensus around
> clarified
> release approval criteria. The second problem is being addressed by
> making it
> easier to recruit outstanding podling contributors to serve on the IPMC.
>
> In my view, the various radical approaches being proposed either do not
> help,
> actively hinder, or add a lot of work and uncertainty -- so for the time
> being, I'd rather work to improve the current system. I'll only join the
> revolution if the incremental improvements are blocked.
Marvin,
Just to clarify - I am attempting to clarify the problem, not posit a
specific solution. I did not suggest that responsibility for voting
should rest with a smaller group - clearly voting rests with those close
to the project - we agree there. Also, I'm not suggesting we need a
revolution, just that we need to recognise that there are structural
issues, and to explore the nature of the problem. The better we can do
that, the easier finding incremental solutions that everyone can put
themselves behind will happen.
I'd say your two issues are definitely worth consideration.
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> We need one set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'.
Disenfranchising mentors and hoarding power within a small circle of IPMC
aristocrats is both unworkable and hypocritical.
* It is unworkable because the people who watch over the IP clearance
process and subsequently endorse incubating releases must follow the
podling day-to-day and must be empowered with binding votes. Superficial
review by freelance IPMC members is useful but cannot substitute for close
supervision.
* It is hypocritical because the IPMC needs to recognize and reward merit if
we expect podlings to do likewise.
> The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond repair).
I don't see the clashes in the IPMC's immediate past as arising from
structural defects -- we experienced ordinary personnel issues which could
have happened to any project. The IPMC's size wasn't even much a factor,
since none of our dormant members played any part in prolonging the conflicts.
> Judging the success of any new structure will be easy: does it create peace
> and quiet (and more effective working) like the breakup of the PRC did??
The Incubator has two acute, serious problems.
1. First releases are too hard.
2. Mentor attrition.
The first problem is being addressed by building consensus around clarified
release approval criteria. The second problem is being addressed by making it
easier to recruit outstanding podling contributors to serve on the IPMC.
In my view, the various radical approaches being proposed either do not help,
actively hinder, or add a lot of work and uncertainty -- so for the time
being, I'd rather work to improve the current system. I'll only join the
revolution if the incremental improvements are blocked.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> ...Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?...
It's not.
Well, maybe it is, but up to a point. The good thing is that podlings
currently get some level of double supervision: the Incubator PMC watches
over them (including via incubator shepherds, which as a board member I
like a lot) and is responsible for them. Board members can additionally
have a look at the detailed podling reports, in addition to the very useful
incubator summary that the IPMC chair produces. Depending on available
time, as a board member I sometimes read all of the detailed reports,
sometimes only the ones that seem to warrant attention, and sometimes just
the chair's summary.
All this works quite well IMO, as a board member I don't see a need to fix
anything.
-Bertrand
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Chris,
Individuals who contribute to Podlings are doing so as mentors and members
of theY IPMC. There is nothing in the Director role that says they are
required to do so.
You can add me to that list of people who have mentored projects in the
last year (I've been part of something like 7 graduating podlings this
year). In every case I did so as an IPMC member. Doing so did not increase
my responsibilities to other podlings.
I do not understand why you are listing peoples engagement in individual
podlings as evidence that Directors have not delegated oversight of
podlings to the IPMC. It simply is not true, two directors have told you
this, as have multiple IPMC members.
Nobody, that I can see, is proposing another layer in the IPMC. You are
proposing moving a layer to the board (although you don't accept that will
be an outcome). I've suggested refining the decision making process. In the
meantime Benson *has* refined the decision making process and the IPMC
seems to have agreed to it.
Let's focus on whether ComDev and the IPMC want to share some
responsibilities.
Ross
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 1 Apr 2013 05:31, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >
> >
> >Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> >huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>
> Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
> that.
> 2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
> proposal [1]
> I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
> one of
> them is the Board. So I've enumerated at least the concerns of myself and
> many others about
> a range of tasks, and addressed them (for well over a year). I've heard
> zero feedback
> from you about what's wrong with my table, and what I've missed, what
> could be improved
> and have heard nothing but "it's wrong" (paraphrased) or "it doesn't cover
> all the tasks
> that of course will get dropped on the Board"? I've done the work to
> document
> my thoughts. You don't get to then just keep telling me it's wrong without
> specifying
> what precisely is wrong about it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
> >> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
> >>
> >
> >I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> >active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> >should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
>
> Actually it should be expected -- there is a reason that people like Jim
> mentored AOO -- people like Sam joined in, and so did Greg with AOO and
> Bloodhound (all 3 are directors). There is a reason that Bertrand has been
> very active in the Incubator with Flex and other recent projects. Same as
> Rich with Allura -- Roy helps a lot too with clarifications when needed.
> I've seen more than a handful of emails from Brett Porter too, so he's
> definitely around.
> So, sorry Directors too pay just as much attention to PPMCs and to the
> Incubator based on their
> own individual Incubator and Director hats, and based on their reporting.
>
> >
> >
> >> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
> >> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
> >> at the top of the Incubator report).
> >
> >
> >I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
> >are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> >foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> >board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> >report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
> >
> >
> >
> >> What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross
> >> agree
> >> with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and
> >>it
> >> needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that.
> >>
> >
> >No, I do not agree there is a grave problem. I have denied that
> >repeatedly.
> >The IPMC has problems, but in the main it works extremely well.
>
> Fine you don't think it's grave. I don't care how it's classified
> ('grave',
> 'purple', 'pink', 'yellow', whatever). There is a problem is what I
> probably
> should have said.
>
> Look, I hear you that, it's probably possible that folks can come up with
> even yet another layer beyond the Shepherds, etc., and that that can goad
> people into thinking stuff is fixed around here. Jukka's work was great,
> and
> I applaud him for it, but as I said at the time, to me we're just adding
> more
> and more layers to the onion, instead of stripping it down to its roots and
> core.
>
> Also it's possible that if you guys continue to add layers, and suggest
> mechanisms
> for organizing those that are active around here, I may just go back to my
> merry
> way of getting podlings through the Incubator, graduated, and taught in
> the ASF
> way.
>
> But it's also possible that the existence of this super/meta committee and
> its
> super awesome badges that many of the folks here are just too blind to
> give them up
> will wain on individuals.
>
>
> >
> >[..snip..]
> >The first of these two roles is, for the most part, where the IPMC can
> >sometimes reach stagnation and can become extremely confusing to podlings
> >(getting multiple answers for one question for example). Maybe it is time
> >to move this to ComDev and take that area of conflict away from the IPMC.
> >This would leave the IPMC to focus on providing the oversight that Jukka's
> >new processes have started to heal and Benson is now fine-tuning.
>
> I suggested this in my proposal -- and also creating
> http://incubation.apache.org/
> which is home to all the documentation/processes, etc. This is step #1
> in my proposal BTW (moving to ComDev).
>
> Also note the section titled:
>
> Use Cases for Future Incubator Documentation Requests to ComDev
>
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> First off, thanks for reading my proposal!
>
> Specific comments below:
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Monday, April 1, 2013 7:00 AM
> To: general-incubator <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ross,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
> >> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> >> majority vote vs consensus)
> >>
> >> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are
> >>delegating a
> >> >huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
> >>
> >> Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
> >> that.
> >> 2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
> >> proposal [1]
> >> I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
> >> one of
> >> them is the Board.
> >
> >
> >There are two responsibilities you list that shift to the board - 1) spots
> >problems with mentoring 2) fixes problems with mentoring.
>
> I agree, "spots problems with mentoring" could potentially fall on the
> board,
> if the incoming new project and its 3 ASF members don't spot the problem
> beforehand. Just like it falls to the the board related to all projects if
> there are "issues" (mentoring, the Apache Way or otherwise).
>
> Before I add that to my proposal, I would ask you to consider some of my
> recent emails related to mentoring issues with podlings, and ask that if
> you think that the IPMC is currently doing a great of spotting problems
> with mentoring.
If you, if you can please cite examples that would be great. I have counter
> examples (Mesos, for one) wherein which emails requesting help have gone
> unanswered, but if you have others in support of that, I'd appreciate
> hearing
> them.
The issue with Mesos mentors was raised by a shepherd - it did result in
one new mentor for a short while. Then when that persons stepped down, you
volunteered. I agree its still an issue for Mesos - so hasn't been
successfully resolved. What I do see on a regular basis is shepherds
reporting back on mentor status as part of the oversight role. I would be
surprised if the board wanted to do this work.
> >
> >Also in your proposal oversight of releases is discarded and therefore I
> >would add "spots problems with releases" is also therefore ultimately the
> >boards responsibility.
>
> My philosophy is that there can remain a small set of mentors, e.g., these
> "shepherds" if you will that ought to volunteer for projects as they come
> into the ASF and be part of their initial PMC. The initial "Champion" role
> should also be an ASF member, until the incoming project is ready to elect
> its own chair (should happen in < 1 year).
>
> These same people are likely going to be the same people who are great at
> checking releases now (sebb, Marvin, others). There doesn't need to be an
> IPMC for them to do that.
>
Actually there does. PMC's are responsible for releases - they do the
checks AND vote as part of the IPMC - so its an IPMC release. Take away
their PMC role and the checks alone are just an opinion with no power to
approve or not. I'm not necessarily opposed to that (haven't given it
thought) - but if the project is given responsibility for releases - then
the board will have to take ultimate responsibility for catching &
resolving issues.
>
> >
> >Jukka & now Benson have IMO been successful in focusing podlings on what
> >they need to do to graduate and pushing them through the process - rather
> >than staying for years in the incubator. So I would add this to the list
> >of
> >what the board would need to pick up.
>
> Well sorry, I don't think it's Jukka and Benson. I've never been a
> shepherd
> once, neither has Chris Douglas, neither has a bunch of people that have
> successfully brought podlings through the Incubator as of late.
>
> Jukka and Benson aren't necessarily the only reasons that things shaped up
> around here though I wholly appreciate their efforts.
Apologies - I didn't mean to diminish anyone elses efforts.
> >
> >Lastly I would also say that shifting voting on new projects from a public
> >to private list is not an improvement and would exclude those proposing
> >from answering any objections or concerns.
>
> Yes, I am +1 for that. In my proposal, I've gone and updated it to shift
> that responsibility to voting on general@incubator (which as I mention
> in my proposal will remain).
>
OK, so I guess that net effect is ASF members not on IPMC now get binding
vote and IPMC members that are not ASF members no longer get a binding
vote. Seems that this is removing people that earned it by merit and adding
people that never had an interest in incubator.
> One note I'd add -- in my proposal, responsibility is not directly shifted
> onto the board, until it's shown that the incoming project's committee
> is unable to handle it:
>
> (see shifted responsibility:
> The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the
> board
> or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs.
>
> )
>
> HTH.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
> egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
> is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
> the decision-making body for policy that controls those releases.
Please step back to the orignal roots of the problem here. It may
offer alternate solutions.
In essence, the *BOARD* needs to approve every release from the ASF.
The Board delegates this responsibility to reach scale. Those
delegates, operating in the Board's name, will then approve the
releases.
The problem at hand: find and designate those delegates. It doesn't
matter how. The current solution is "the release votes have been
delegated to (I)PMC Members, and it requires three to establish ASF
approval." Maybe there is another path. Talk about it, run it by the
Board, and get it approved. I believe there are *many* solutions. Just
fine one that works in this large, variant environment.
>...
> Ross' other proposal :-), to move documentation (and thus some/much of
> the locus of policy decision) making to comdev, reduces the load of
> decision-making that the IPMC has to find consensus on, and thus
> proposes to reduce the stress.
Documentation about the ASF *should* move to ComDev. It is history
that has left that doc scattered around. Its logical (and eventual)
home lies with ComDev.
I forsee ComDev as a group who documents "who we are", and "how we
work", and ...
I forsee the Incubator as the *mechanism* of teaching what ComDev has explained.
>...
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> Having said that, here's an idea that builds on your proposal. There is
> already the opportunity to name the board as the sponsoring organisation.
> Why not say "where the board is willing to sponsor the project it can go
> straight to TLP" (e.g. exactly as Apache Steve did). This would allow a
> larger scale experiment around Chris' proposal but provides the opportunity
> for the board to control how much of the oversight role is pushed towards
> it and how much remains with the IPMC.
>
> Ross
>
If the board are ok with that experiment then i think it sounds like an
fine thing to try.
...ant
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 4 April 2013 08:46, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies <
> bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ...Chris proposes that this
> >>> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
> >>> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
> >>> from so far has been less than enthusiastic...
> >>
> >> That's my case, and I'm not interested in arguing this much more -
> >> deconstructing the Incubator PMC does not look like a good idea to me,
> >> both as a board member and as an ASF member.
> >
> > I am interested in graduating podlings into TLPs when ready. I think the
> incubator is an excellent place that has done tremendous efforts in
> fulfilling the mission of the ASF - software for the public good.
> >
> > It pains me to continue to read Chris's continual efforts to disband. It
> is wearying and demotivating.
>
> Chris is jumping towards the end result. Don't get upset by that. The
> simpler answer: *try* his new approach on a singular podling basis.
> That can run in parallel to the Incubator.
>
> The Board can easily absorb one "special incubation" project. There is
> an entirely separate discussion of what that really means, how much
> Board-offloading is performed, what kinds of mentoring/input is
> provided, etc. But the short answer is that we can run trials
> *without* dismantling the Incubator.
>
I'm all for such tests. If it were not for this oversight role of the IPMC
then Chris' plan would be a fine one. However, it seems that almost every
month the board looks at an issue in the IPMC reports and says "that's an
IPMC issue, they seem to be handling it well so lets move on". Without the
IPMC those conversations would be different. A single test of a single
project would not highlight this.
Having said that, here's an idea that builds on your proposal. There is
already the opportunity to name the board as the sponsoring organisation.
Why not say "where the board is willing to sponsor the project it can go
straight to TLP" (e.g. exactly as Apache Steve did). This would allow a
larger scale experiment around Chris' proposal but provides the opportunity
for the board to control how much of the oversight role is pushed towards
it and how much remains with the IPMC.
Ross
>
> Consider it.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...Chris proposes that this
>>> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
>>> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
>>> from so far has been less than enthusiastic...
>>
>> That's my case, and I'm not interested in arguing this much more -
>> deconstructing the Incubator PMC does not look like a good idea to me,
>> both as a board member and as an ASF member.
>
> I am interested in graduating podlings into TLPs when ready. I think the incubator is an excellent place that has done tremendous efforts in fulfilling the mission of the ASF - software for the public good.
>
> It pains me to continue to read Chris's continual efforts to disband. It is wearying and demotivating.
Chris is jumping towards the end result. Don't get upset by that. The
simpler answer: *try* his new approach on a singular podling basis.
That can run in parallel to the Incubator.
The Board can easily absorb one "special incubation" project. There is
an entirely separate discussion of what that really means, how much
Board-offloading is performed, what kinds of mentoring/input is
provided, etc. But the short answer is that we can run trials
*without* dismantling the Incubator.
Consider it.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...Chris proposes that this
>> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
>> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
>> from so far has been less than enthusiastic...
>
> That's my case, and I'm not interested in arguing this much more -
> deconstructing the Incubator PMC does not look like a good idea to me,
> both as a board member and as an ASF member.
I am interested in graduating podlings into TLPs when ready. I think the incubator is an excellent place that has done tremendous efforts in fulfilling the mission of the ASF - software for the public good.
It pains me to continue to read Chris's continual efforts to disband. It is wearying and demotivating.
Upayavira made an effort to just discuss problems, yet Chris continues to push his poison pill solution.
Now I'll do my best to do the shepherd thing and look at long time podling's like VXQuery - which is slowly working towards their second release and probably needs a new Mentor.
I have less time this year for the IPMC, I am not sure I have time to Mentor for awhile, but Shepherding is fun. It's time for some fledgling's to be pushed out of the nest.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -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: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Chris proposes that this
> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
> from so far has been less than enthusiastic...
That's my case, and I'm not interested in arguing this much more -
deconstructing the Incubator PMC does not look like a good idea to me,
both as a board member and as an ASF member.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 2 April 2013 22:18, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ross' proposal sacrifices some egalitarianism
> to achieve better scaling of both decision-making and supervision.
>
It is not my intention to sacrifice some egalitarianism. My intention is to
allow those who have signed up to mentor projects to get on with mentoring
them without the well-meaning interference of a large body of ill-informed
bystanders (with respect to individual projects needs). This involves both
decision-making and supervision. In this regard I believe my proposal is
similar in intent to Chris M's. However, unlike Chris I don't see the IPMC
failing in this regard. Usually it does a great job.
Where my proposal differs from Chris' is in the oversight role of the IPMC.
I see oversight as the vital function of the collective IPMC, it is
the ability to identify when mentors and their podlings need additional
support as they progress towards graduation. When mentors are doing fine
this part of the IPMC role is just a case of signing off the board report.
It's when something needs adjusting that the IPMC becomes inefficient. It
is this aspect that I am seeking improvement for.
BUT...
Maybe these situations are rare enough to not worry too much about it and
rather than change the structure of the IPMC we simply look to thrash out
the odd issue that arises, one at a time. For the record I am pleased that
you pushed for a change in voting rules driven by a consensus issue. Maybe
we just need more of that on the odd occasionally becomes necessary.
Ross
>
>
>
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
A simple question for you all.
If the current amount of podlings (38):
[terra:~/tmp/podlings-content] mattmann% cat podlings.xml | grep current |
wc -l
38
[terra:~/tmp/podlings-content] mattmann%
Graduated over the next 3 months (~13 a month), or even the next 6 months
(which is
~6 near the current rate +/- a few), would the Board members suddenly
cease to function?
And then in that time, if we gain 1-2 new projects a month (probably
greater than
the average the past few years), would the Board again cease to function?
My proposal is to dissolve the self questioning, TL;DR, binding VOTEs and
wild
west that is the Incubator PMC. The rest of the situation stays the same.
Keep the
stinkin' documentation at http://incubation.apache.org, and folks can
continue
to work/crank on it there if they desire. Why is a (meta)/umbrella
committee needed for this?
And stop identifying the Board as the folks who shoulder the load. The
committees
(incoming and graduated) shoulder the load -- the Board only acts rarely,
and
when provoked. We also have committees for Legal and otherwise that can be
leveraged
here as I have stated.
BTW, note the first step you all seem to agree on is also the first step
in my proposal,
that Greg and I proposed over a year ago.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:18 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
>Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
>egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
>is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
>the decision-making body for policy that controls those releases. The
>dilemma is that consensus doesn't always scale so well. Neither does
>supervision: when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.
>
>There are several directions to go to on this. Chris M's proposal
>dissolves the IPMC into many, small, egalitarian communities, and
>leaves overarching policy for the board and comdev, where it lives for
>all the other projects. Ross' proposal sacrifices some egalitarianism
>to achieve better scaling of both decision-making and supervision.
>
>Ross' other proposal :-), to move documentation (and thus some/much of
>the locus of policy decision) making to comdev, reduces the load of
>decision-making that the IPMC has to find consensus on, and thus
>proposes to reduce the stress.
>
>I sense that Chris M finds my writing on his proposal frustrating. To
>try to do a better job of explaining myself: Chris proposes that this
>committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
>large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
>from so far has been less than enthusiastic. It's one thing for this
>community to self-govern, but self-destruction strikes me as outside
>of the mandate. It just strikes me as sideways to seek consensus
>inside a community that the community is incapable of reliable
>reaching consensus, amongst other things. If I believed that the IPMC
>was unfixably nonfunctional in supervision or decision-making, I
>wouldn't be seeking a consensus. I'd be reporting my view to the
>board, making a recommendation, and asking for direction. That's how I
>see my duty as an officer. In other words, if there's something
>functional to be the chair of, my job is to be the chair of it. If
>there's nothing functional to be the chair of, it's my job to say so,
>recognizing that the board might just disagree.
>
>Now that we've cleared up some other matters, I'll try to help us all
>discover if we have a consensus on one of these proposals.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
the decision-making body for policy that controls those releases. The
dilemma is that consensus doesn't always scale so well. Neither does
supervision: when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.
There are several directions to go to on this. Chris M's proposal
dissolves the IPMC into many, small, egalitarian communities, and
leaves overarching policy for the board and comdev, where it lives for
all the other projects. Ross' proposal sacrifices some egalitarianism
to achieve better scaling of both decision-making and supervision.
Ross' other proposal :-), to move documentation (and thus some/much of
the locus of policy decision) making to comdev, reduces the load of
decision-making that the IPMC has to find consensus on, and thus
proposes to reduce the stress.
I sense that Chris M finds my writing on his proposal frustrating. To
try to do a better job of explaining myself: Chris proposes that this
committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
from so far has been less than enthusiastic. It's one thing for this
community to self-govern, but self-destruction strikes me as outside
of the mandate. It just strikes me as sideways to seek consensus
inside a community that the community is incapable of reliable
reaching consensus, amongst other things. If I believed that the IPMC
was unfixably nonfunctional in supervision or decision-making, I
wouldn't be seeking a consensus. I'd be reporting my view to the
board, making a recommendation, and asking for direction. That's how I
see my duty as an officer. In other words, if there's something
functional to be the chair of, my job is to be the chair of it. If
there's nothing functional to be the chair of, it's my job to say so,
recognizing that the board might just disagree.
Now that we've cleared up some other matters, I'll try to help us all
discover if we have a consensus on one of these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
> > Whenever I
> > > look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
> > > confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit
> > of
> > > rhetoric. I hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for
> the
> > > whole problem...)
> > >
> > >
> > Yep I don't know that "ignored" is the best word, and i agree the doc can
> > be incomplete and confusing. For another example take the minimum
> > graduation requirements documented on the policy page:
> >
> > "The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are
> > at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company
> or
> > entity that is vital to the success of the project)"
> > - http://incubator.apache
> > .org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >
>
> Great example - it's reasonably clear but incorrect (as well as being
> imprecise as you illustrate). We don't require a minimum of 3 independent
> committers. We require a community that doesn't exclude anyone.
>
> I don't have the time to look it up but there was quite some discussion
> about this point some time ago. I seem to remember the IPMC agreeing the
> docs need to be updated.
>
> Ross
>
>
That would be further evidence that the doc is often "ignored" right?
(Would be interested in a link if you/anyone can find it, to see if a
decision was clearly made about this)
...ant
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
> Whenever I
> > look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
> > confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit
> of
> > rhetoric. I hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the
> > whole problem...)
> >
> >
> Yep I don't know that "ignored" is the best word, and i agree the doc can
> be incomplete and confusing. For another example take the minimum
> graduation requirements documented on the policy page:
>
> "The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are
> at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company or
> entity that is vital to the success of the project)"
> - http://incubator.apache
> .org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>
Great example - it's reasonably clear but incorrect (as well as being
imprecise as you illustrate). We don't require a minimum of 3 independent
committers. We require a community that doesn't exclude anyone.
I don't have the time to look it up but there was quite some discussion
about this point some time ago. I seem to remember the IPMC agreeing the
docs need to be updated.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
> look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
> confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
> rhetoric. I hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the
> whole problem...)
>
>
Yep I don't know that "ignored" is the best word, and i agree the doc can
be incomplete and confusing. For another example take the minimum
graduation requirements documented on the policy page:
"The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are
at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company or
entity that is vital to the success of the project)"
- http://incubator.apache
.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
That seems reasonably clear. Based on that policy we have people saying a
poddling can't graduate yet because they don't have three independent
committers. Or maybe they do have three committers listed but some haven't
been active for ages. How long is ages though? Or what is active - actually
committing something or is the odd email enough? Or what about if we think
they would vote in a new person if someone came along in the future, maybe
thats enough? Or how about if some of the mentors agree to stick around on
the new PMC to make up the numbers? All of those things get debated. Not so
long ago we had a "what to do with small slow poddlings" debate and a
couple of small poddlings were allowed to graduate anyway despite not quite
meeting that minimum requirement, then just a little while later Chuwka in
a very similar state was nearly retired.
...ant
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
rhetoric. I hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the
whole problem...)
On 3 April 2013 09:29, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
> > is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily,
> I
> > understand, in relation to releases.)
> >
> >
> Hi Noah, i suggested that one of the problems was the variation in opinion
> and in who happens to decide to be active at particular moment means it can
> be hard to tell what the reaction will be to any particular action, and
> once there is a disagreement the diversity of opinion means it can be hard
> to find any consensus.
>
> I didn't offer any solutions yet, just getting some agreement on what the
> issues are first would be good. But I'm not convinced more doc is going to
> help this much, and moving the doc to be under the control of comdev would
> IMHO just make the doc even more ignored than it is today.
>
> ...ant
>
--
NS
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
> is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
> understand, in relation to releases.)
>
>
Hi Noah, i suggested that one of the problems was the variation in opinion
and in who happens to decide to be active at particular moment means it can
be hard to tell what the reaction will be to any particular action, and
once there is a disagreement the diversity of opinion means it can be hard
to find any consensus.
I didn't offer any solutions yet, just getting some agreement on what the
issues are first would be good. But I'm not convinced more doc is going to
help this much, and moving the doc to be under the control of comdev would
IMHO just make the doc even more ignored than it is today.
...ant
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
understand, in relation to releases.)
This doesn't seem related to the size of the PMC, to me. We're always going
to need a large pool of people with the ability to cast binding votes on
releases. (Just because of the effort involved.) So whether those people
are on the PMC or whether we allow non-PMC mentors to exist and have
binding votes — it makes no difference. We still end up with a large pool
of people with wildly diverging approaches and world-views.
That seems like a different sort of problem to me. Perhaps a documentation
problem. Perhaps the recent suggestion to spin out the documenting of
policy and guidelines to ComDev — or some proposal like it — could improve
that situation. The problem seems larger than the Incubator in any case. I
get the strong impression that from TLP to TLP, people are doing things
very differently. (And this is where our mentors are recruited from.)
On 2 April 2013 11:16, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
> > problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
> > common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
> > all to accept.
> >
> > So, my question to you is are you able/willing to articulate the
> > problems do you see the incubator as having, that need to be solved?
> > That is, without (yet) suggesting how it should be fixed?
> >
> > I'd be very curious to hear how you see it.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> >
> This is what i think is a big part of the problem:
>
> The PMC is so big and diverse, and made up of people who just join by
> choice not by being invited, and sometimes they don't even care about the
> PMC they just join to mentor their poddling, so there isn't so much sense
> of respect or working together. Those people all have different points of
> view and expectations on how things should happen, some are liberal while
> some are more conservative, and the set of people who are active varies
> over time.
>
> So what that means is it can be hard to tell what the reaction will be to
> any particular action, and when something unexpected happens its
> understandable that sometimes someone is going to get surprised or upset.
>
> Take voting on a release as an example, sometimes that will get three quick
> +1s with minimal review, sometimes it will take weeks of pleading for
> votes, sometimes a problem will be pointed out but people will still vote
> +1 anyway, sometimes it will be +1'd with a request to fix the issue later,
> other times it will be demanded that a respin is done to fix the issue.
> Theres no way of knowing really, it just depends who happens to be around
> and active at the time.
>
> And the same thing happens for just about every situation where there is
> some rule or policy or guideline documented.
>
> There are things I think we could do to fix some of that, but i agree with
> Upayavira, we would need some common understanding and agreement on what
> the issues are first.
>
> ...ant
>
--
NS
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
> problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
> common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
> all to accept.
>
> So, my question to you is are you able/willing to articulate the
> problems do you see the incubator as having, that need to be solved?
> That is, without (yet) suggesting how it should be fixed?
>
> I'd be very curious to hear how you see it.
>
> Upayavira
>
>
This is what i think is a big part of the problem:
The PMC is so big and diverse, and made up of people who just join by
choice not by being invited, and sometimes they don't even care about the
PMC they just join to mentor their poddling, so there isn't so much sense
of respect or working together. Those people all have different points of
view and expectations on how things should happen, some are liberal while
some are more conservative, and the set of people who are active varies
over time.
So what that means is it can be hard to tell what the reaction will be to
any particular action, and when something unexpected happens its
understandable that sometimes someone is going to get surprised or upset.
Take voting on a release as an example, sometimes that will get three quick
+1s with minimal review, sometimes it will take weeks of pleading for
votes, sometimes a problem will be pointed out but people will still vote
+1 anyway, sometimes it will be +1'd with a request to fix the issue later,
other times it will be demanded that a respin is done to fix the issue.
Theres no way of knowing really, it just depends who happens to be around
and active at the time.
And the same thing happens for just about every situation where there is
some rule or policy or guideline documented.
There are things I think we could do to fix some of that, but i agree with
Upayavira, we would need some common understanding and agreement on what
the issues are first.
...ant
Re: Incubator structure
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Upayavira,
-----Original Message-----
From: Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:17 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
>Chris,
>
>What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
>problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
>common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
>all to accept.
No problem.
I've articulated those for a while now, they were the original parts of
my proposal [1]. See the headings there that being with:
* Podlings are themselves distinct communities
* Podlings are more and more able to pick up on the basic principles of
the
Incubator documentation; its legal oversight and its processes
* Mentors encourage their podlings to operate autonomously
These are a combination of observations (based on problems), and problems
themselves, which have led to divergence in many of the core Incubator
issues.
The way I see it, many of the things that led me to write [1] still exist.
And, many of the small steps that we took to unhinge some of the problems
that were documented in [1] and the thread referenced in [1], such as
"Joe's
experiment" (to allow PPMC members VOTEs to matter more on releases), and
such as steps that we've taken to reduce the requirement for 3 +1s from
IPMC members to VOTE in a new PPMC member. Those are related to self
governance, and the recognition that podlings themselves should not have
to be so as dependent on folks from the IPMC, because it's a "wild west".
>
>
>So, my question to you is are you able/willing to articulate the
>problems do you see the incubator as having, that need to be solved?
>That is, without (yet) suggesting how it should be fixed?
Yes, I've articulated them for a while now. :)
What I appreciated from Niall, and anyone that reads my proposal, are
specific comments, backed with data, about the proposal itself. Sure
it has a plan of action (as any good proposal should), but it has
problems, and observations, that lead to that plan of action, too.
>
>I'd be very curious to hear how you see it.
Thank you for kindly considering my opinion Upayavira. I respect
and appreciate yours as well.
Cheers,
Chris
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote
vs consensus)
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Chris,
What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
all to accept.
So, my question to you is are you able/willing to articulate the
problems do you see the incubator as having, that need to be solved?
That is, without (yet) suggesting how it should be fixed?
I'd be very curious to hear how you see it.
Upayavira
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 02:00 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Niall,
>
> First off, thanks for reading my proposal!
>
> Specific comments below:
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Monday, April 1, 2013 7:00 AM
> To: general-incubator <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ross,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
> >> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> >> majority vote vs consensus)
> >>
> >> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are
> >>delegating a
> >> >huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
> >>
> >> Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
> >> that.
> >> 2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
> >> proposal [1]
> >> I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
> >> one of
> >> them is the Board.
> >
> >
> >There are two responsibilities you list that shift to the board - 1) spots
> >problems with mentoring 2) fixes problems with mentoring.
>
> I agree, "spots problems with mentoring" could potentially fall on the
> board,
> if the incoming new project and its 3 ASF members don't spot the problem
> beforehand. Just like it falls to the the board related to all projects
> if
> there are "issues" (mentoring, the Apache Way or otherwise).
>
> Before I add that to my proposal, I would ask you to consider some of my
> recent emails related to mentoring issues with podlings, and ask that if
> you think that the IPMC is currently doing a great of spotting problems
> with mentoring.
>
> If you, if you can please cite examples that would be great. I have
> counter
> examples (Mesos, for one) wherein which emails requesting help have gone
> unanswered, but if you have others in support of that, I'd appreciate
> hearing
> them.
>
> >
> >Also in your proposal oversight of releases is discarded and therefore I
> >would add "spots problems with releases" is also therefore ultimately the
> >boards responsibility.
>
> My philosophy is that there can remain a small set of mentors, e.g.,
> these
> "shepherds" if you will that ought to volunteer for projects as they come
> into the ASF and be part of their initial PMC. The initial "Champion"
> role
> should also be an ASF member, until the incoming project is ready to
> elect
> its own chair (should happen in < 1 year).
>
> These same people are likely going to be the same people who are great at
> checking releases now (sebb, Marvin, others). There doesn't need to be an
> IPMC for them to do that.
>
> >
> >Jukka & now Benson have IMO been successful in focusing podlings on what
> >they need to do to graduate and pushing them through the process - rather
> >than staying for years in the incubator. So I would add this to the list
> >of
> >what the board would need to pick up.
>
> Well sorry, I don't think it's Jukka and Benson. I've never been a
> shepherd
> once, neither has Chris Douglas, neither has a bunch of people that have
> successfully brought podlings through the Incubator as of late.
>
> Jukka and Benson aren't necessarily the only reasons that things shaped
> up
> around here though I wholly appreciate their efforts.
>
> >
> >Lastly I would also say that shifting voting on new projects from a public
> >to private list is not an improvement and would exclude those proposing
> >from answering any objections or concerns.
>
> Yes, I am +1 for that. In my proposal, I've gone and updated it to shift
> that responsibility to voting on general@incubator (which as I mention
> in my proposal will remain).
>
> One note I'd add -- in my proposal, responsibility is not directly
> shifted
> onto the board, until it's shown that the incoming project's committee
> is unable to handle it:
>
> (see shifted responsibility:
> The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the
> board
> or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs.
>
> )
>
> HTH.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Niall,
First off, thanks for reading my proposal!
Specific comments below:
-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013 7:00 AM
To: general-incubator <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
>On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
>> majority vote vs consensus)
>>
>> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
>> >
>> >
>> >Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are
>>delegating a
>> >huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>>
>> Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
>> that.
>> 2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
>> proposal [1]
>> I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
>> one of
>> them is the Board.
>
>
>There are two responsibilities you list that shift to the board - 1) spots
>problems with mentoring 2) fixes problems with mentoring.
I agree, "spots problems with mentoring" could potentially fall on the
board,
if the incoming new project and its 3 ASF members don't spot the problem
beforehand. Just like it falls to the the board related to all projects if
there are "issues" (mentoring, the Apache Way or otherwise).
Before I add that to my proposal, I would ask you to consider some of my
recent emails related to mentoring issues with podlings, and ask that if
you think that the IPMC is currently doing a great of spotting problems
with mentoring.
If you, if you can please cite examples that would be great. I have counter
examples (Mesos, for one) wherein which emails requesting help have gone
unanswered, but if you have others in support of that, I'd appreciate
hearing
them.
>
>Also in your proposal oversight of releases is discarded and therefore I
>would add "spots problems with releases" is also therefore ultimately the
>boards responsibility.
My philosophy is that there can remain a small set of mentors, e.g., these
"shepherds" if you will that ought to volunteer for projects as they come
into the ASF and be part of their initial PMC. The initial "Champion" role
should also be an ASF member, until the incoming project is ready to elect
its own chair (should happen in < 1 year).
These same people are likely going to be the same people who are great at
checking releases now (sebb, Marvin, others). There doesn't need to be an
IPMC for them to do that.
>
>Jukka & now Benson have IMO been successful in focusing podlings on what
>they need to do to graduate and pushing them through the process - rather
>than staying for years in the incubator. So I would add this to the list
>of
>what the board would need to pick up.
Well sorry, I don't think it's Jukka and Benson. I've never been a
shepherd
once, neither has Chris Douglas, neither has a bunch of people that have
successfully brought podlings through the Incubator as of late.
Jukka and Benson aren't necessarily the only reasons that things shaped up
around here though I wholly appreciate their efforts.
>
>Lastly I would also say that shifting voting on new projects from a public
>to private list is not an improvement and would exclude those proposing
>from answering any objections or concerns.
Yes, I am +1 for that. In my proposal, I've gone and updated it to shift
that responsibility to voting on general@incubator (which as I mention
in my proposal will remain).
One note I'd add -- in my proposal, responsibility is not directly shifted
onto the board, until it's shown that the incoming project's committee
is unable to handle it:
(see shifted responsibility:
The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the
board
or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs.
)
HTH.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
>
> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >
> >
> >Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> >huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>
> Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
> that.
> 2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
> proposal [1]
> I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
> one of
> them is the Board.
There are two responsibilities you list that shift to the board - 1) spots
problems with mentoring 2) fixes problems with mentoring.
Also in your proposal oversight of releases is discarded and therefore I
would add "spots problems with releases" is also therefore ultimately the
boards responsibility.
Jukka & now Benson have IMO been successful in focusing podlings on what
they need to do to graduate and pushing them through the process - rather
than staying for years in the incubator. So I would add this to the list of
what the board would need to pick up.
Lastly I would also say that shifting voting on new projects from a public
to private list is not an improvement and would exclude those proposing
from answering any objections or concerns.
Niall
> So I've enumerated at least the concerns of myself and
> many others about
> a range of tasks, and addressed them (for well over a year). I've heard
> zero feedback
> from you about what's wrong with my table, and what I've missed, what
> could be improved
> and have heard nothing but "it's wrong" (paraphrased) or "it doesn't cover
> all the tasks
> that of course will get dropped on the Board"? I've done the work to
> document
> my thoughts. You don't get to then just keep telling me it's wrong without
> specifying
> what precisely is wrong about it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
> >> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
> >>
> >
> >I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> >active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> >should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
>
> Actually it should be expected -- there is a reason that people like Jim
> mentored AOO -- people like Sam joined in, and so did Greg with AOO and
> Bloodhound (all 3 are directors). There is a reason that Bertrand has been
> very active in the Incubator with Flex and other recent projects. Same as
> Rich with Allura -- Roy helps a lot too with clarifications when needed.
> I've seen more than a handful of emails from Brett Porter too, so he's
> definitely around.
> So, sorry Directors too pay just as much attention to PPMCs and to the
> Incubator based on their
> own individual Incubator and Director hats, and based on their reporting.
>
> >
> >
> >> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
> >> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
> >> at the top of the Incubator report).
> >
> >
> >I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
> >are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> >foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> >board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> >report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
> >
> >
> >
> >> What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross
> >> agree
> >> with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and
> >>it
> >> needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that.
> >>
> >
> >No, I do not agree there is a grave problem. I have denied that
> >repeatedly.
> >The IPMC has problems, but in the main it works extremely well.
>
> Fine you don't think it's grave. I don't care how it's classified
> ('grave',
> 'purple', 'pink', 'yellow', whatever). There is a problem is what I
> probably
> should have said.
>
> Look, I hear you that, it's probably possible that folks can come up with
> even yet another layer beyond the Shepherds, etc., and that that can goad
> people into thinking stuff is fixed around here. Jukka's work was great,
> and
> I applaud him for it, but as I said at the time, to me we're just adding
> more
> and more layers to the onion, instead of stripping it down to its roots and
> core.
>
> Also it's possible that if you guys continue to add layers, and suggest
> mechanisms
> for organizing those that are active around here, I may just go back to my
> merry
> way of getting podlings through the Incubator, graduated, and taught in
> the ASF
> way.
>
> But it's also possible that the existence of this super/meta committee and
> its
> super awesome badges that many of the folks here are just too blind to
> give them up
> will wain on individuals.
>
>
> >
> >[..snip..]
> >The first of these two roles is, for the most part, where the IPMC can
> >sometimes reach stagnation and can become extremely confusing to podlings
> >(getting multiple answers for one question for example). Maybe it is time
> >to move this to ComDev and take that area of conflict away from the IPMC.
> >This would leave the IPMC to focus on providing the oversight that Jukka's
> >new processes have started to heal and Benson is now fine-tuning.
>
> I suggested this in my proposal -- and also creating
> http://incubation.apache.org/
> which is home to all the documentation/processes, etc. This is step #1
> in my proposal BTW (moving to ComDev).
>
> Also note the section titled:
>
> Use Cases for Future Incubator Documentation Requests to ComDev
>
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> ...If Mentors fall away after "phase 1" ends, it's less of a problem. Replacing
> Mentors is less consequential once the code base has reached the "known good
> state" of having made it through the release process....
Agreed, though it's good to still make sure a Champion and/or Shepherd
is watching over the podling to make sure it still gets adequate
supervision.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
Benson writes:
>> We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
>> period of time (six months) they commit to thinking of themselves _as
>> a PMC_, not just as some sort of diffuse advisors or coaches...
+1 to the change of mentality.
Bertrand replies:
> I like that - I'd say 3 months for the initial commitment, and ask
> mentors to indicate in the project proposal how many hours per week
> they think they can dedicate to the task.
The task that I think it's very important for the initial group of Mentors to
steward through to completion is the absorption of the code base and the
approval of the first incubating release.
Freelance IPMC members performing release reviews can check whether files have
the necessary license headers, but can't see how those headers got there,
whether all copyright relocations were performed appropriately, and so on.
If we're not entirely comfortable asking candidate Mentors to make specific
individual time commitments, there's an alternative: emphasize that the
initial Mentors **as a group** are signing up to supervise "phase 1" of
incubation, which involves IP clearance and concludes with a successful vote
on the first incubating release.
If Mentors fall away after "phase 1" ends, it's less of a problem. Replacing
Mentors is less consequential once the code base has reached the "known good
state" of having made it through the release process.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...How about the following more incremental experiment: we do what
> Upayavira says: we set a higher bar for mentors at podling start time.
> We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
> period of time (six months) they commit to thinking of themselves _as
> a PMC_, not just as some sort of diffuse advisors or coaches...
I like that - I'd say 3 months for the initial commitment, and ask
mentors to indicate in the project proposal how many hours per week
they think they can dedicate to the task.
And also make sure each podling has a champion who agrees to fulfill
the "during incubation" role listed at
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion
So far we tried to make sure sufficient mentor power is available by
having 2 to 3 mentors with vague requirements - with this new model a
champion and a mentor can be sufficient if they are clearly engaged
and available, and if the champion raises alarms if that's not the
case anymore.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I see it, the incubator as we have it is a mechanism for coping
> with the lack of mentor commitment. As Ross often writes, it's easy to
> say that Mentors *should* make this commitment, but mentors are
> volunteers, and things happen. Upayavira wonders if Mentor 'harvest
> glory' and then wander away. I think it's more likely that they do the
> best they can, given the constraints of their lives.
>
> If three members showed up and were willing to state the necessary
> level of commitment to a new project to be a TLP, sure, let them be a
> TLP instantly. But if that's the standard for starting a new project
> at Apache, I predict that we'll start very few new projects.
The only commitment necessary is to take *care* of the project. The
ASF has no specific demand about velocity of a project. As long as
somebody is caring for it, then we let the community continue.
I have no problem with three Members starting arbitrary projects.
> This leads me to a question back to Greg: what do you want to do if a
> new project has troubles: a Mentor has a kid, or a new job, or
> whatever? Shut it down? I'd suspect that you'd hope to recruit a
> replacement, but that's a messy procedure for the board to be stuck
> with.
Not the Board's problem. The project is responsible for finding a
replacement, in order to continue, in order to get out of "probation"
status (or, "podling" status, or whatever).
> I end up thinking that this looks like a _reductio_ argument that
> leads back to the IPMC.
Nope.
The IPMC was created to properly handle incoming projects, in terms of
community and IP. At the time, "all" podlings were sponsored by an
existing TLP. We've jettisoned umbrellas, so now "all" podlings have
no particular sponsor.
But. The concept was "sponsoring TLP provides manpower to help the podling".
No sponsor? No manpower. Oops.
That's where we are today.
> How about the following more incremental experiment: we do what
> Upayavira says: we set a higher bar for mentors at podling start time.
> We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
> period of time (six months) they commit to thinking of themselves _as
> a PMC_, not just as some sort of diffuse advisors or coaches.
Eh? We don't expect this kind of commitment from *anybody*. I have
never said "if you want to join the Subversion PMC, then you MUST make
a public declaration of a six month commitment."
Upayavira talked about *ability* .. not *commitment*.
> I expect
> that this will make it harder to start podlings, and I think that this
> constraint would reflect reality. Such a group could then graduate as
> soon as it picked up a few more PMC members and did a release. If we
> stick to this, maybe the IPMC will wither away, or just shrink to a
> smaller group. I think that this experiment comes before Greg's, as we
> should see if anyone will make this claim, and whether they live up to
> it, before we launch such a group into the exosphere of pure board
> supervision. Ultimately, this might mean that we retire the word
> 'mentor' and replace it with, well, 'PMC member'.
"before Greg's"? Why? If I want to be really antagonistic, I might
point out that the decision is the Board's :-)
(and I might suggest to podlings out there: hey, why not... petition
the Board to try a new approach; can't hurt; worst is they'll say
"no"; but you better have lots of Members handy)
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
As I see it, the incubator as we have it is a mechanism for coping
with the lack of mentor commitment. As Ross often writes, it's easy to
say that Mentors *should* make this commitment, but mentors are
volunteers, and things happen. Upayavira wonders if Mentor 'harvest
glory' and then wander away. I think it's more likely that they do the
best they can, given the constraints of their lives.
If three members showed up and were willing to state the necessary
level of commitment to a new project to be a TLP, sure, let them be a
TLP instantly. But if that's the standard for starting a new project
at Apache, I predict that we'll start very few new projects.
This leads me to a question back to Greg: what do you want to do if a
new project has troubles: a Mentor has a kid, or a new job, or
whatever? Shut it down? I'd suspect that you'd hope to recruit a
replacement, but that's a messy procedure for the board to be stuck
with.
I end up thinking that this looks like a _reductio_ argument that
leads back to the IPMC.
How about the following more incremental experiment: we do what
Upayavira says: we set a higher bar for mentors at podling start time.
We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
period of time (six months) they commit to thinking of themselves _as
a PMC_, not just as some sort of diffuse advisors or coaches. I expect
that this will make it harder to start podlings, and I think that this
constraint would reflect reality. Such a group could then graduate as
soon as it picked up a few more PMC members and did a release. If we
stick to this, maybe the IPMC will wither away, or just shrink to a
smaller group. I think that this experiment comes before Greg's, as we
should see if anyone will make this claim, and whether they live up to
it, before we launch such a group into the exosphere of pure board
supervision. Ultimately, this might mean that we retire the word
'mentor' and replace it with, well, 'PMC member'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Just a thought.
>
> Chris' solution says 'make mentors the initial PMC'. They vote in other
> project team members as appropriate to be peers. This creates a positive
> egalitarian setup which mirrors that of a PMC, which is a good thing.
>
>
There was a poddling a while ago that had this approach of having the
initial PPMC be just the mentors. It ended in an argument when the
PPMC/mentors voted in a new committer that the other committers weren't so
keen on, and it ended with the PPMC rebooted to add in all the initial
committers. That approach also goes against the change we made so that
poddlings could vote in their own committers without needing binding votes
from Incubator PMC members.
...ant
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote
vs consensus)
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Just a thought.
Chris' solution says 'make mentors the initial PMC'. They vote in other
project team members as appropriate to be peers. This creates a positive
egalitarian setup which mirrors that of a PMC, which is a good thing.
Much of the problem in the incubator seems to me to be mentor
inactivity. People can sign up as mentors, gain whatever 'glory' is
involved in that, and *do* nothing. This is not on, in my book, does a
disservice to the projects that they are supposed to be mentoring, and
can, eventually, make the incubator PMC look like the 'bad boys' by
having to say things that the mentors should be saying (e.g. you're not
up-to-scratch).
We can (and should) expect a lot more of our mentors. Perhaps one way to
restructure things would be for the task of the Incubator PMC to
oversee/supervise *the mentors* not the project. The project reports to
the board, as any existing TLP does. But a new mentor needs to be
approved by the incubator PMC, and needs to be witnessed to be mentoring
effectively on his first few podlings. After the incubator PMC has seen
him do the job well, they can relax a bit, and pay less attention to
projects he is mentoring. Perhaps there comes a point where he can
mentor new projects without any incubator involvement at all (as
effectively was with Apache Steve). The incubator PMC can report to the
board about mentor's inactivity, and the projects/podlings involved,
giving them a heads-up to issues that might be coming.
This puts heaps more responsibility on mentors (who are effectively core
PMC members) and creates an accountability mechanism to (hopefully) keep
them on track, and to spot cases where, for whatever reason, a project
is not getting the mentor attention required to progress, which is the
task that the board has delegated to the Incubator PMC already.
An amalgam of the various approaches already suggested.
As I said, just a thought.
Upayavira
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013, at 09:06 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >
> > Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> > huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>
> I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight. If
> a podling required three Members to sign off, and the report required
> your points... then we (the Board) might actually have better insight
> than some TLPs.
>
> The Board has 50+ reports to review each month. Thankfully, there
> hasn't been much push back on that yet. We seem to be keeping up (the
> shepherd/comment system helps us). Throwing in some podlings shouldn't
> upset us, as it actually drops the [giant] Incubator report down to
> (maybe?) empty.
>
> >> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
> >> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
> >
> > I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> > active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> > should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
>
> If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we
> *should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more
> attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and
> approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to
> delegate/slack a little bit on those reports.
>
> Point is: the Incubator is not the only solution here. Think about
> other options. Maybe the Board can accept the podling, and designate
> some pseudo-VPs to be held responsible?
>
> >> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
> >> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
> >> at the top of the Incubator report).
> >
> >
> > I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
> > are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> > foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> > board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> > report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
>
> Agreed! And this is a very important point that seems to be left behind a
> bit.
>
> I would counter that the IPMC doesn't tend to satisfy this
> oversight/educational role consistently well. In the end, it simply
> depends upon the Mentors' attention. There are very few (none?)
> solutions to that basic problem.
>
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 4 Apr 2013 15:17, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
wrote:
> > On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
> >> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> >> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >> >
> >> > Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are
delegating a
> >> > huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
> >>
> >> I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight.
> >
> >
> > That is the key issue.
> >
> > I can name many really good mentors. The problem is that prior to the
new
> > processes introduced by Jukka we had a great many projects that
stagnated
> > because of inattentive mentoring. The current IPMC reporting process
picks
> > those up and addresses them internally within the IPMC. This is the
reason
> > that we have seen more podlings graduate in the last year.
> >
> > If we remove that aspect of the IPMCs oversight then who will catch
these
> > projects that don't have mentors actively looking after them? It will be
> > the boards responsibility to do that. I contest that this does not
scale.
> > We need a solution that will scale appropriately whilst also removing
the
> > inefficiencies introduced by a large IPMC.
>
> The Board easily deals with this. Today, we look to the VP to give us a
report.
>
Agreed.
> Let's say that a provisional/podling/probationary TLP requires (3)
> Members ("mentors") to sign off on each report. If a report fails to
> receive those three sign-offs, then it does not get accepted. Simple
> as that.
>
Well I've proposed we require mentor signoff in the past. It was rejected
because our mentors are volunteers.
I proposed we require shepherd signoff. It was rejected because our
shepherds are volunteers.
I, and apparently you Greg, don't think think it is unreasonable to expect
the mentors to take collective responsibility like this. I would continue
to support this idea. Doing so addresses my concerns about the missing
oversight in Chris' proposal because the board need not visit IPMCs to
verify the report is accurate (as shepherds do now).
...
> I also believe that the Board is more active than the IPMC. The
> Incubator shepherd process (modeled after our Board shepherds) has
> brought out the *active* IPMC Members. Those correlate to the
> Directors -- they are active in the PMC-level concerns. They have
> dedication to the Incubator aspect of our Foundation, yet I don't
> think they provide as much coverage (yet!) as the Directors. If that
> aspect of the Incubator expanded, then we'd likely be in great shape.
Agreed. This was a large part of the reasoning behind my proposal to
formally recognise shepherds. But I concede that your
modification/clarification of Chris' proposal makes it viable and even
preferable to my own proposal (assuming ComDev coverage of the
non-oversight aspects).
Ross
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
>> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
>> >
>> > Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
>> > huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>>
>> I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight.
>
>
> That is the key issue.
>
> I can name many really good mentors. The problem is that prior to the new
> processes introduced by Jukka we had a great many projects that stagnated
> because of inattentive mentoring. The current IPMC reporting process picks
> those up and addresses them internally within the IPMC. This is the reason
> that we have seen more podlings graduate in the last year.
>
> If we remove that aspect of the IPMCs oversight then who will catch these
> projects that don't have mentors actively looking after them? It will be
> the boards responsibility to do that. I contest that this does not scale.
> We need a solution that will scale appropriately whilst also removing the
> inefficiencies introduced by a large IPMC.
The Board easily deals with this. Today, we look to the VP to give us a report.
Let's say that a provisional/podling/probationary TLP requires (3)
Members ("mentors") to sign off on each report. If a report fails to
receive those three sign-offs, then it does not get accepted. Simple
as that.
The project then needs to hit up (say) general@community.a.o to troll
for new Members/mentors to fill the slacker slot that occurred.
I see no undue burden on the Board in this approach.
>>> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
>>> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
>>
>> I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
>> active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
>> should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
>
>> If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we
>> *should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more
>> attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and
>> approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to
>> delegate/slack a little bit on those reports.
>>
>
>
> In principle this is fine, but in principle the IPMC already demands that N
> ASF Members track the podling so what is changing?
Because there is slack space. "gee. a mentor didn't sign off on the
podling report" is very different from the Board saying "rejected.
get/find your Members to sign off. we will close you in six months if
we see no valid reports by then."
I also believe that the Board is more active than the IPMC. The
Incubator shepherd process (modeled after our Board shepherds) has
brought out the *active* IPMC Members. Those correlate to the
Directors -- they are active in the PMC-level concerns. They have
dedication to the Incubator aspect of our Foundation, yet I don't
think they provide as much coverage (yet!) as the Directors. If that
aspect of the Incubator expanded, then we'd likely be in great shape.
But I'd also see that as Board replacement, and something I believe
the Board is quite capable of doing anyways.
etc etc. The short answer in my mind is: podlings need to learn how to
report to the Board. So fine: make them do that. And make them have N
Members "on staff" to avoid the worst of problems, which may really
waste the Board's time.
(but even then, the Board is quite good at marking a report as bogus
via the comment section, and later reviewers learning to skip, or
detail review, or whatever; a minor change in our process/time)
And in the end, the Board adapts to the needs of the Foundation.
Believe me, when I was Chairman and spent two hours go over reports on
the conference call... something had to break. *THAT* was
non-scalable. We're nowhere near that kind of hell.
>...
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hey Ross,
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:22 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
>On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
>> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
>> >
>> > Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are
>>delegating a
>> > huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>>
>> I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight.
>
>
>That is the key issue.
>
>I can name many really good mentors. The problem is that prior to the new
>processes introduced by Jukka we had a great many projects that stagnated
>because of inattentive mentoring. The current IPMC reporting process picks
>those up and addresses them internally within the IPMC. This is the reason
>that we have seen more podlings graduate in the last year.
I see it a teeny bit differently (though later emails from you and
Greg seem to have brought our ideas into alignment).
You directly equate Jukka's processes with graduating so many
podlings. While I think Jukka's processes were great, they were a
means to an ends -- they along with some key IPMC members who are
active (you will see later that you are in that short list of active
ones ^_^) are the reasons more podlings graduated. Coupled with
Joe's experiment, and coupled with the removal of the IPMC 3 +1s
for releases which both came before Jukka's time. Another key was
the clarification of the role of Champion and Champions really
stepping up.
Note that those burdens being removed are precisely the initial
steps towards the removal of the meta committee that is the IPMC
since both steps in effect reduced the power of the umbrella to
stall and stagnate podlings.
I went back, starting in March 2012 [1] when Jukka took over to
cull a list of shepherds and active mentors that signed off on at
least 1 report for the IPMC (before there were shepherds). Here is
the list and tallies for each month that the mentors signed off on
at least 1 report. Note in tallies below I count the mentor or
shepherd Nx per month so if they signed N multiple reports, they
still get a count of N. I went ahead and uploaded these scripts to
[2] in case folks are interested in how I tallied (note I also
removed some nonsense from these files by hand mainly stop words
since I didn't do a ton of data cleansing):
Mentors [ tallies per month since March 2012]
-------
18 rgardler
18 bdelacretaz
16 mattmann
15 phunt
15 kevan
13 tomwhite
9 jukka
9 jim
7 greddin
7 cdouglas
7 adc
7 Alan
6 joes
6 bodewig
6 ate
5 wave
5 tommaso
5 omalley
5 olamy
5 elecharny
4 simonetripodi
4 lresende
4 hwright
4 gstein
4 gianugo
4 Gates
3 struberg
3 nick
3 mnour
3 jbonofre
3 coheigea
3 Struberg
3 Petracek
3 Mark
3 Gerhard
3 Cabrera
2 wavw
2 twilliams
2 rfrovarp
2 marrs
2 ddas
2 cutting
2 berndf
2 ant
2 Ralph
2 Olivier
2 Lamy
2 Goers
2 Devaraj
2 Das
2 (struberg)
2 (rgoers)
2 (gates)
1 yegor
1 wrowe
1 thorsten
1 rfeng
1 mfranklin
1 line
1 jvermillard
1 grobmeier
1 generic
1 dkulp
1 dennisl
1 dashorst
1 brett
1 bmargulies
1 asavory
1 Williams
1 Upayavira
1 Tim
1 Reddin
1 Martijn
1 Lundberg
1 Greg
1 Fisher
1 Dennis
1 Dave
1 Dashorst
1 (wave)
1 (greddin)
1 (gates@)
If we cut off the above at 3 sign offs or more, we see that there
are 31 mentors that fit that criteria. If we say at least 6 sign
offs on reports in the last year (averaging less than 1 sign off
every 2 months) then that number drops to 15.
The point being that whatever number we pick any of those 15-31 (or
whatever N) mentors could simply be considered candidates for these
new VPs for incoming projects without an Incubator whilst the
incoming projects are learning the Apache way from their 3 ASF
members and others in the community. In fact, this is really what
the role of the Champion is now. Sort of a provisional podling VP
until the incoming project community VP (aka "real" VP) is elected.
>
>If we remove that aspect of the IPMCs oversight then who will catch these
>projects that don't have mentors actively looking after them? It will be
>the boards responsibility to do that. I contest that this does not scale.
>We need a solution that will scale appropriately whilst also removing the
>inefficiencies introduced by a large IPMC.
>
>>> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
>>> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
>>
>> I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
>> active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
>> should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
>
>If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we
>> *should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more
>> attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and
>> approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to
>> delegate/slack a little bit on those reports.
>>
>
>
>In principle this is fine, but in principle the IPMC already demands that
>N
>ASF Members track the podling so what is changing?
Nada really which is one of my points that my proposal is in fact
wholly incremental, and not a consideration between "evolution" and
"revolution". In fact, Bill Rowe put it well as does Greg. I'm
really just pushing the idea of "Incubation, yes". "Incubator, no".
And I'm even saying we should probably have the notion that these
podlings are provisional and we can even note that in the Board
report, I think Greg was suggesting that too somewhere. Then at
some point, after all looks well the podlings can simply request
the Board that their provisional status is removed (likely around
the time that they can elect a new VP).
>
>
>>
>> Point is: the Incubator is not the only solution here. Think about
>> other options. Maybe the Board can accept the podling, and designate
>> some pseudo-VPs to be held responsible?
>>
>
>OK. This seems to be similar to my overlapping proposal in a different
>message to allow the board to sponsor podlings. Are we onto something
>here?
Yep!
>
>
>
>>
>> >> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
>> >> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
>> >> at the top of the Incubator report).
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board
>> reports
>> > are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within
>>the
>> > foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
>> > board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly
>>board
>> > report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
>>
>> Agreed! And this is a very important point that seems to be left behind
>>a
>> bit.
>>
>> I would counter that the IPMC doesn't tend to satisfy this
>> oversight/educational role consistently well. In the end, it simply
>> depends upon the Mentors' attention. There are very few (none?)
>> solutions to that basic problem.
>>
>>
>I don't think I fully agree with that today (12 months ago I would
>agree). The shepherding process has caught a great many situations where
>mentors are inattentive and has addressed them directly. II do agree it
>can
>be further improved (hence my original proposal as one way of doing this).
December 2012 [3] is the first appearance I see of the shepherd
process. Whilst it may have been discussed and used before (which
I haven't the time or energy to look up mailing list threads yet),
it wasn't actually put into the board reports until only 4 months
ago. I don't think we have enough evidence to point to that yet as
the sole cause for better oversight by the IPMC.
On the other hand, as I mentioned, things like the Champion discussion,
removal of 3 +1s from IPMC on adding new people, the "experiment
by Joe", and more active mentoring seem to be the cause.
Cheers,
Chris
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2012
[2] http://people.apache.org/~mattmann/incubator-activity/
[3] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2012
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >
> > Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> > huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>
> I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight.
That is the key issue.
I can name many really good mentors. The problem is that prior to the new
processes introduced by Jukka we had a great many projects that stagnated
because of inattentive mentoring. The current IPMC reporting process picks
those up and addresses them internally within the IPMC. This is the reason
that we have seen more podlings graduate in the last year.
If we remove that aspect of the IPMCs oversight then who will catch these
projects that don't have mentors actively looking after them? It will be
the boards responsibility to do that. I contest that this does not scale.
We need a solution that will scale appropriately whilst also removing the
inefficiencies introduced by a large IPMC.
>> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
>> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
>
> I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we
> *should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more
> attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and
> approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to
> delegate/slack a little bit on those reports.
>
In principle this is fine, but in principle the IPMC already demands that N
ASF Members track the podling so what is changing?
>
> Point is: the Incubator is not the only solution here. Think about
> other options. Maybe the Board can accept the podling, and designate
> some pseudo-VPs to be held responsible?
>
OK. This seems to be similar to my overlapping proposal in a different
message to allow the board to sponsor podlings. Are we onto something here?
>
> >> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
> >> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
> >> at the top of the Incubator report).
> >
> >
> > I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board
> reports
> > are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> > foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> > board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> > report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
>
> Agreed! And this is a very important point that seems to be left behind a
> bit.
>
> I would counter that the IPMC doesn't tend to satisfy this
> oversight/educational role consistently well. In the end, it simply
> depends upon the Mentors' attention. There are very few (none?)
> solutions to that basic problem.
>
>
I don't think I fully agree with that today (12 months ago I would
agree). The shepherding process has caught a great many situations where
mentors are inattentive and has addressed them directly. II do agree it can
be further improved (hence my original proposal as one way of doing this).
Ross
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
>
> Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight. If
a podling required three Members to sign off, and the report required
your points... then we (the Board) might actually have better insight
than some TLPs.
The Board has 50+ reports to review each month. Thankfully, there
hasn't been much push back on that yet. We seem to be keeping up (the
shepherd/comment system helps us). Throwing in some podlings shouldn't
upset us, as it actually drops the [giant] Incubator report down to
(maybe?) empty.
>> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
>> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
>
> I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we
*should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more
attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and
approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to
delegate/slack a little bit on those reports.
Point is: the Incubator is not the only solution here. Think about
other options. Maybe the Board can accept the podling, and designate
some pseudo-VPs to be held responsible?
>> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
>> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
>> at the top of the Incubator report).
>
>
> I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
> are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
Agreed! And this is a very important point that seems to be left behind a bit.
I would counter that the IPMC doesn't tend to satisfy this
oversight/educational role consistently well. In the end, it simply
depends upon the Mentors' attention. There are very few (none?)
solutions to that basic problem.
>...
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Ross,
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
>On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
>
>
>Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
>huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
that.
2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
proposal [1]
I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
one of
them is the Board. So I've enumerated at least the concerns of myself and
many others about
a range of tasks, and addressed them (for well over a year). I've heard
zero feedback
from you about what's wrong with my table, and what I've missed, what
could be improved
and have heard nothing but "it's wrong" (paraphrased) or "it doesn't cover
all the tasks
that of course will get dropped on the Board"? I've done the work to
document
my thoughts. You don't get to then just keep telling me it's wrong without
specifying
what precisely is wrong about it.
>
>
>
>> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
>> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
>>
>
>I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
>active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
>should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
Actually it should be expected -- there is a reason that people like Jim
mentored AOO -- people like Sam joined in, and so did Greg with AOO and
Bloodhound (all 3 are directors). There is a reason that Bertrand has been
very active in the Incubator with Flex and other recent projects. Same as
Rich with Allura -- Roy helps a lot too with clarifications when needed.
I've seen more than a handful of emails from Brett Porter too, so he's
definitely around.
So, sorry Directors too pay just as much attention to PPMCs and to the
Incubator based on their
own individual Incubator and Director hats, and based on their reporting.
>
>
>> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
>> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
>> at the top of the Incubator report).
>
>
>I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
>are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
>foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
>board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
>report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
>
>
>
>> What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross
>> agree
>> with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and
>>it
>> needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that.
>>
>
>No, I do not agree there is a grave problem. I have denied that
>repeatedly.
>The IPMC has problems, but in the main it works extremely well.
Fine you don't think it's grave. I don't care how it's classified
('grave',
'purple', 'pink', 'yellow', whatever). There is a problem is what I
probably
should have said.
Look, I hear you that, it's probably possible that folks can come up with
even yet another layer beyond the Shepherds, etc., and that that can goad
people into thinking stuff is fixed around here. Jukka's work was great,
and
I applaud him for it, but as I said at the time, to me we're just adding
more
and more layers to the onion, instead of stripping it down to its roots and
core.
Also it's possible that if you guys continue to add layers, and suggest
mechanisms
for organizing those that are active around here, I may just go back to my
merry
way of getting podlings through the Incubator, graduated, and taught in
the ASF
way.
But it's also possible that the existence of this super/meta committee and
its
super awesome badges that many of the folks here are just too blind to
give them up
will wain on individuals.
>
>[..snip..]
>The first of these two roles is, for the most part, where the IPMC can
>sometimes reach stagnation and can become extremely confusing to podlings
>(getting multiple answers for one question for example). Maybe it is time
>to move this to ComDev and take that area of conflict away from the IPMC.
>This would leave the IPMC to focus on providing the oversight that Jukka's
>new processes have started to heal and Benson is now fine-tuning.
I suggested this in my proposal -- and also creating
http://incubation.apache.org/
which is home to all the documentation/processes, etc. This is step #1
in my proposal BTW (moving to ComDev).
Also note the section titled:
Use Cases for Future Incubator Documentation Requests to ComDev
Cheers,
Chris
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
>
I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
> at the top of the Incubator report).
I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
> What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross
> agree
> with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and it
> needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that.
>
No, I do not agree there is a grave problem. I have denied that repeatedly.
The IPMC has problems, but in the main it works extremely well.
Upayavira does get it right in his email when he says:
"To summarise. The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond
repair). We need as many mentors as we can get, and a smaller group of
people who are delegated responsibility for the incubator. The board
wants a group of folks to take responsibility for overseeing the early
life of communities at the ASF. These are, to my mind, the criteria that
we should be using to evaluate any suggestions as to how the incubator
should be structured. If it doesn't meet these, it won't float."
The rest of his excellent mail got me thinking.
When we discussed this before Jukka took over there was a push for ComDev
to take on the documentation of policy, best practice and process. As VP of
ComDev at the time I pushed back. I was concerned that moving the process
of documentation wasn't going to make any real difference. However, I did
say that if the IPMC could start to get its house in order then I agreed
ComDev would be the right place for this.
I think the IPMC has resolved many of its problems over the last 12 months.
So it is time to revisit that suggestion. However, I would suggest we
revisit in the light of Upayavira's excellent mail, specifically:
"It seems to me there are two principal roles that the Incubator has had
- one is to help define processes, and social mores. ... The second role is
to provide 'oversight' or
'supervision', providing a layer above mentors to ensure that podlings
are progressing and that mentors are active. It is this latter role that
is still very much needed, as we would expect there to be more issues in
newer podlings than in established TLPs. It seems to me that the board
*wants* to delegate this responsibility to another committee."
The first of these two roles is, for the most part, where the IPMC can
sometimes reach stagnation and can become extremely confusing to podlings
(getting multiple answers for one question for example). Maybe it is time
to move this to ComDev and take that area of conflict away from the IPMC.
This would leave the IPMC to focus on providing the oversight that Jukka's
new processes have started to heal and Benson is now fine-tuning.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Benson,
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:02 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
>>[..snip..]
>
>Chris M observes, if I may parody, that it's 'just like' the
>discredited umbrella projects, and proposes to fix this by making
>podlings even more like the standard model -- each one a TLP
>supervised by The Board.
That's one part of it.
[..snip..]
>
>
>I think that any alternative has to specifically address the alternate
>legal structure. Who votes on releases? Who votes on karma? I
>personally don't have a problem with a plan in which the incubator
>isn't really a PMC at the end of the day. One way to combine Ross and
>Chris is to say, 'well, the Board could decide that it can't watch 22
>nascent projects, so it's delegated that to a committee.
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs? And if they
are not then I call b. to the s. -- we ask the podlings to start operating
like TLPs on day 1 -- we ask the mentors to do the same -- and to teach
the PPMC that. Yet, the board isn't watching them in the same way?
Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
at the top of the Incubator report). That's at least one other Director
(there were probably more since there was consensus on the podling
specific reports not going away when it was discussed) that IMHO watches
the podlings the same way as the TLPs are watched.
And, why is it so hard to see that the "Board" may watch, but in the
end, it's on the specific committees ('podling' as we currently call
them or 'PPMC' or otherwise [TLP]) to manage their stuff? The Board
is the "bazooka", the "elephant gun", remember? That's why we're still
here discussing ad nauseum this topic a year later -- because to bazooka
the Incubator would be some monuments event, similar to the bazooka, of
PRC, etc. -- something that's discussed at ApacheCon over beer about the
'old ways' and 'can you believe when that happened, wow??!'. In the end,
it's not a monuments event. As Upayavira said, life went on in PRC, in
the sub committees; Apache went on.
What I've done is suggest [in the Apache vein], what is IMO, a logical,
incremental (and even potentially reversible) "next step". Upayavira's
latest email on this was right -- he sees that the Incubator is broken,
and perhaps it needs to be split into smaller, separate committees. Ross
is right too -- maybe something else needs to be elected in the form of a
committee (his shepherds) to watch the incoming projects. My point is
-- great -- I can't see the forrest through the trees on the answer to
that
question yet. What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross
agree
with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and it
needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that.
I've suggested a logical next step to fixing it -- don't let the wacko
committee try and "fix itself". That's like asking an insane asylum to
form a committee for how it will itself. Besides the insanity, they are
naturally in a conflict of interest state. Instead, I'm proposing, rubble
the asylum, transition delegation and authority if only temporarily until
some next step proposal can be agreed upon and discussed without the
inmates.
>[..snip..]
Cheers,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
vote vs consensus)
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
> To summarise. The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond
> repair). We need as many mentors as we can get, and a smaller group of
> people who are delegated responsibility for the incubator. The board
> wants a group of folks to take responsibility for overseeing the early
> life of communities at the ASF. These are, to my mind, the criteria that
> we should be using to evaluate any suggestions as to how the incubator
> should be structured. If it doesn't meet these, it won't float.
I think there's something missing here. The incubator structure as we
know it is, very intentionally, a variation on the standard TLP model.
There is a tree in svn (ok, also some git repos). There are PMC
members. There are committers. Releases and committer karma are
controlled by the PMC. All nice and neat, just like all other TLPs.
The IPMC is, in fact, a PMC.
Chris M observes, if I may parody, that it's 'just like' the
discredited umbrella projects, and proposes to fix this by making
podlings even more like the standard model -- each one a TLP
supervised by The Board. Ross proposes to establish an interior
structure to the incubator. People seem to prefer to stay close to the
standard model, for good reason, as the legal structure is all worked
out.
I think that any alternative has to specifically address the alternate
legal structure. Who votes on releases? Who votes on karma? I
personally don't have a problem with a plan in which the incubator
isn't really a PMC at the end of the day. One way to combine Ross and
Chris is to say, 'well, the Board could decide that it can't watch 22
nascent projects, so it's delegated that to a committee. The
'podlings' are projects, and they have an initial PMC composed
entirely of Foundation members, which grows over time, and the
'incubator committee' serves as the board's representatives in
watching them.'
Really, the big argument here is whether it's broken enough to fix. On
the 'endless discussion' front, I think not. It would be easier to
repair the chair to than to change the structure. On the supervision
front, well, there's a big disagreement here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org