You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> on 2015/03/01 20:29:42 UTC
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
>> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator
>> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ?
>> >
>> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the
>> > podlings that you might be referring to.
>>
>> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
>
> Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If
> the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do
> about it :-P
Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the
only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things would go
something like this:
1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution.
2. Board passes pTLP resolution.
3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling.
> Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
> of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm just
> pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...
I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that most or
all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC members
for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at consensus
in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable
that the wider IPMC would stand in the way.
Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment, even
if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run under
the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the way.
The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where
the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of
friction.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> >>...The Incubator PMC might not have a
> >> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
> >> before that, collaboratively and in public.
> >
> > That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
> > list....
>
> Not "a" mailing list, "this" mailing list. There's no reason for the
> preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where
> podlings are prepared, which is on this list.
>
Fine. My primary point was: IPMC has *nothing* to do with the discussion.
That happens on a mailing list, and sure: general@i.a.o is just fine.
Maybe one day, it will be new-projects@apache.org.
But I want to reinforce what Ross noted: pTLP should not be conflated with
Incubator bits. It has no place, and that's why I'm being vocal right now.
You said, "the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation
resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC", and I believe that
is totally wrong.
Cheers,
-g
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>>>...The Incubator PMC might not have a
>>> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
>>> before that, collaboratively and in public.
>>
>> That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
>> list....
>
> Not "a" mailing list, "this" mailing list. There's no reason for the
> preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where
> podlings are prepared, which is on this list.
I'm putting all of this bits of feedback in a very formal policy document
modeled after the formal Incubator policy definition.
I am frustrated as hell, because a huge update I've just made seems
to have been wiped out by the Confluence outage.
I'll try again once it is back.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>>...The Incubator PMC might not have a
>> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
>> before that, collaboratively and in public.
>
> That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
> list....
Not "a" mailing list, "this" mailing list. There's no reason for the
preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where
podlings are prepared, which is on this list.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
> >> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
> >> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling...
> >>
> > Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself.
>
> It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in
> the same way as podling proposals are.
>
> The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be
> created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review.
>
> Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks,
> recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. -
> this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some
> pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a
> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
> before that, collaboratively and in public.
That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
list.
-g
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
>> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
>> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling...
>>
> Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself.
It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in
the same way as podling proposals are.
The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be
created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review.
Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks,
recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. -
this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some
pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a
formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
before that, collaboratively and in public.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not....
>
> I think it is actually in between ;-)
>
> While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of
> the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling.
>
Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself.
If a community says, "we'd like to be a pTLP", then why/how does the
Incubator PMC need to be involved in that?
-g
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not....
I think it is actually in between ;-)
While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of
the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
are fairly similar to the creation of a podling.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: pTLP process amendments
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
+1
either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not. We need to lose these mixed messages. It seems people are still using the same ten to represent different things.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Niclas Hedhman<ma...@hedhman.org>
Sent: 3/1/2015 6:38 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: pTLP process amendments
Marvin,
I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution
of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are
with the normal graduation resolution.
So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling
"disappears" and the pTLP is expected to clean up its Incubator presence
just like a podling is expected to do once it graduates.
// Niclas
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
> >> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator
> >> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers
> ?
> >> >
> >> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically
> the
> >> > podlings that you might be referring to.
> >>
> >> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
> >
> > Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice.
> If
> > the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could
> do
> > about it :-P
>
> Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the
> only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things
> would go
> something like this:
>
> 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution.
> 2. Board passes pTLP resolution.
> 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling.
>
> > Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
> > of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm
> just
> > pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...
>
> I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that
> most or
> all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC
> members
> for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at
> consensus
> in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable
> that the wider IPMC would stand in the way.
>
> Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment,
> even
> if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run
> under
> the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the
> way.
> The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where
> the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of
> friction.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Marvin,
I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution
of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are
with the normal graduation resolution.
So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling
"disappears" and the pTLP is expected to clean up its Incubator presence
just like a podling is expected to do once it graduates.
// Niclas
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
> >> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator
> >> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers
> ?
> >> >
> >> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically
> the
> >> > podlings that you might be referring to.
> >>
> >> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
> >
> > Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice.
> If
> > the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could
> do
> > about it :-P
>
> Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the
> only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things
> would go
> something like this:
>
> 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution.
> 2. Board passes pTLP resolution.
> 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling.
>
> > Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
> > of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm
> just
> > pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...
>
> I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that
> most or
> all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC
> members
> for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at
> consensus
> in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable
> that the wider IPMC would stand in the way.
>
> Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment,
> even
> if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run
> under
> the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the
> way.
> The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where
> the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of
> friction.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java