Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)

["Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

[Note subject line change for Benson]


Hi Ross,

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
To: general <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

>We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to
>IPMC. The amount of work the board does on x podlings weach month is less
>than the work they do on x TLPs.

Yeah I guess this is the crux.

I respect your opinion, but honestly feel strongly for my own too :)
No worries, such is life.

>That is without the IPMC addressing issues
>that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes
>necessary.

Well yeah that's the point. I've gone into details, ad nauseum. They are
literally extrapolated on my proposal and in numerous email threads too.
I've done the work to document them.

>
>There are problems of efficiency, that is what I believe is the problem.
>But as I said we need to agree to differ at this time.

Without knowing the specifics, saying that we differ I don't think is
Constructive at least on my end. IOW, I don't think it's anything that a
bar camp, with some
good IPA wouldn't solve ^_^

>
>Where I differ from you is that not when  each podling had 3 active and
>engaged mentors, all would be good in those cases. That is rarely the case
>though. 

Ross, if it's rarely the case, I wouldn't be here helping 6 podlings at
the moment in the Incubator (and those podlings wouldn't have all come to
me
asking me directly to help mentor). I'm talking about 14 podlings over
the last few years. Here you go I'll enumerate:

---graduated
OODT
Airavata
SIS
Gora
Lucy
Giraph

cTAKES
Any23

---current
HDT
Mesos
Tez
Knox
Climate 
Tajo


>Therefore your proposal means either a reduction in the number of
>accepted projects (problem: how do we know which to accept),
> a reduction in
>the quality of TLPs (problem: reduction in perceived quality of all ASF
>brands), or a bigger oversight role for the board (problem: will the board
>accept this?)

The above is anecdotal -- the board has scaled from 90 projects a few
years ago to 
137 currently over that time. Based on that, I don't think any of the 3
above 
suggestions will happen.

Cheers,
Chris

>
>For me the first option is the only outcome that can be considered. If
>that
>is a desired change (it is not for me) then your proposal is great. For
>now
>though the change I want is a more efficient IPMC and this is why we need
>to agree to differ at least until more of the IPMC have a stomach for
>radical change.
>
>Ross
>
>Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
>On 29 Mar 2013 01:49, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hey Ross,
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>>
>> >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many
>>actions
>> >each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded.
>>That
>> >is why the IPMC submits a board report.
>>
>> What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1]
>>outside of
>> what the board already does for PMCs? I count a total of 0 in the right
>> hand
>> column of my table.
>>
>> Being specific myself:
>>
>> 1. Directors review the IPMC report, and are charged (at least the
>>Director
>> shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with
>> reviewing
>> the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion
>>before
>> about
>> removing specific podling reports, and only leaving the summary -- this
>> was nixed.
>> Directors are still charged with reviewing podling individual reports,
>> same as
>> they are with actual project reports. Thus, if you say there are no more
>> podlings,
>> as I do in my proposal, please define, specifically, where the extra
>>work
>> is?
>>
>> 2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little
>>centralized
>> authority.
>> Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka! Fix
>>it
>> yourself,
>> PMC! OK, so with that said, what's the problem then by saying, no more
>> podlings,
>> there are simply PMCs? New projects come in to the ASF via steps 3-5 in
>>my
>> proposal --
>> through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of
>> merit, community, etc,
>> guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready,
>>the
>> board VOTEs
>> on the incoming project(s). This is true today. Incubator "podlings" are
>> *not officially
>> endorsed projects of the ASF* until they are turned into TLPs by board
>> resolution.
>> Again, so what's changed?
>>
>> What's even more hilarious and illustrative of the guise towards
>> decentralization
>> is that there have been discussions within this very same thread that
>> instead of
>> telling the board there are problems with the Incubator, that we should
>> "fix them ourselves"
>> here. Hehe. Kind of a reflexive but powerful look in the mirror about
>>the
>> desire
>> to move *away* from centralization.
>>
>> Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the
>>goal
>> of the ASF
>> is for the PMCs to be self governing? The "Apache way" is intimated
>> through tribal
>> knowledge of its members. Activeness of a member (and 3 of them on a
>>PMC)
>> is something
>> that the board is aware of, so these things will get caught at project
>> creation, and/or
>> through personnel additions incrementally.
>>
>> >
>> >That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
>> >stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all this
>>up
>> >again. For now lets agree to differ.
>>
>> No problem -- I think we're closer than it seems, but yes, I'm fine with
>> dropping it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>>
>>[..snip..]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

> 2) more direct leadership that seeks basic consensus on very
> specific and clear new changes, but doesn't let discussions get weighed down
> with too many options, or stalled by a relative handful of -0s.

The hard work of forging consensus is wasted when the IPMC does not follow its
own rules.

Marvin Humphrey

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

Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

As the chair here, I start from the premise that I've been invited to serve
as the chair of the incubator as we know it. I have some sympathy for Chris
M's views, but the job I have here is, first and foremost, to facilitate
making the existing thing work. So I expect to be one of the last people to
jump on a helicopter labelled 'shut down the IPMC and replace it with
something radically different, up to and including nothing at all.' My job
is to facilitate 'Incremental changes,' to quote what might be a plurality
of the current board members.

Some negatives are hardy perennials, but deserve some careful examination.

'oppressive process': Some recent messages emphasized the oppressive nature
of the IPMC. It seems to me that 90% of this has always been the struggle
to get the legal boilerplate into order and thus releases approved. After
Marvin and Bertrand's wonderful writing effort here, I think that we might
have cured that issue. We have a flock of new podlings; let's see how they
do when they go into the release cycle. If the new documentation avoids
7-spin release cycles, I'm not sure what's left of the fascist regime. I
cannot recall the last time the IPMC had much to say about adding a
committer or anything else that podlings do except make releases.

'supervision': As Shane emphasizes, the shortage of volunteer attention is
a problem whether you have the IPMC as we know it or Chris M's proposal.
Chris' proposal has the advantage of rubbing everyone's nose in the
problem, where in contrast the IPMC as we know it can serve as a rug under
which it can be swept. However, we don't have to blow up the IPMC to get
tough on this. We could set a higher bar for new podlings, and we could
take more draconian steps if a podling runs out of mentor. I'm not
_proposing_ either of these, merely observing that this PMC could take
those steps. We could just adopt Ross' structure, which adds some further
emphasis to shepherding, and see how we do.

'decision-making': There are too many people who are members of this
committee for us to expect traditional consensus process to function very
well.  Unless you believe that full consensus process is an defining trait
of all Apache operations at all scales on all days, that's not a reason to
blow up the IPMC. One way to look Ross' proposal is that it could split
policy-making from supervision. His flock-of-shepherds becomes the policy
committee, and the rest of the IPMC is in the supervision business.



.




On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

> Personally, I would find IPMC issues much easier to follow if we all
> limited threads to more specific topics, and started new threads for new
> specific topics.  This one is still pretty buried.
>
> On 3/29/2013 1:11 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> ...
>
>  I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find
>> sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will
>> scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a
>> typical
>> mentor, most of us need sleep.
>>
>
> This is a critical point.  Not only does it show that Chris has a high bus
> factor (although he's no Sam, that's for sure), it's also wildly
> unrepresentative of the average ASF Member, or in fact any likely Incubator
> area contributor.
>
>
>  I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the
>> incubation
>> process is broken.  Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems
>> of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or
>> that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in.
>> Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus
>> to
>> the board. Moving problems does not solve them.
>>
>
> I'll just offer one general commentary here.  It feels like a lot of
> discussion recently has gone into the minutiae of decision making rules.
>  What it feels like we need are both 1) more shepherds who are
> *predictably* active at assisting with their podlings and getting
> well-written reports in shape, and 2) more direct leadership that seeks
> basic consensus on very specific and clear new changes, but doesn't let
> discussions get weighed down with too many options, or stalled by a
> relative handful of -0s.
>
> 1) here is critical, and... I don't know how to get more predictably
> active people, but that's exactly what I've been trying to say with "we
> need to grow more organizational volunteers" in my board statements.
>
> 2) is simply a reflection (and perhaps a not thoroughly thought through
> one) of the reality that we've shown we're bad at scaling *organizational*
> decision making to the Membership scale.  (Note that this is different than
> *technical* decision making.)
>
> An analogy is the success of the three VP positions reborn from the fiery
> demise of the PRC.  The PRC had every interested member trying to help
> drive everything, but rarely finishing things.  The current three VPs each
> work with interested members for backup and advise, but fundamentally are
> responsible as individuals for covering their areas to the board.
>
> - Shane
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.**org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>
>

Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)

[Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>]

Personally, I would find IPMC issues much easier to follow if we all 
limited threads to more specific topics, and started new threads for new 
specific topics.  This one is still pretty buried.

On 3/29/2013 1:11 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
...
> I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find
> sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will
> scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a typical
> mentor, most of us need sleep.

This is a critical point.  Not only does it show that Chris has a high 
bus factor (although he's no Sam, that's for sure), it's also wildly 
unrepresentative of the average ASF Member, or in fact any likely 
Incubator area contributor.

> I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the incubation
> process is broken.  Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems
> of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or
> that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in.
> Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus to
> the board. Moving problems does not solve them.

I'll just offer one general commentary here.  It feels like a lot of 
discussion recently has gone into the minutiae of decision making rules. 
  What it feels like we need are both 1) more shepherds who are 
*predictably* active at assisting with their podlings and getting 
well-written reports in shape, and 2) more direct leadership that seeks 
basic consensus on very specific and clear new changes, but doesn't let 
discussions get weighed down with too many options, or stalled by a 
relative handful of -0s.

1) here is critical, and... I don't know how to get more predictably 
active people, but that's exactly what I've been trying to say with "we 
need to grow more organizational volunteers" in my board statements.

2) is simply a reflection (and perhaps a not thoroughly thought through 
one) of the reality that we've shown we're bad at scaling 
*organizational* decision making to the Membership scale.  (Note that 
this is different than *technical* decision making.)

An analogy is the success of the three VP positions reborn from the 
fiery demise of the PRC.  The PRC had every interested member trying to 
help drive everything, but rarely finishing things.  The current three 
VPs each work with interested members for backup and advise, but 
fundamentally are responsible as individuals for covering their areas to 
the board.

- Shane

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

Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)

["Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Hahah, we all need sleep?

What?!! :)

Take care duder, we'll spent some cycles doing other emails while
we let this sit.

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: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:11 AM
To: general <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)

>Chris,
>
>The fundamental issue is that I don't agree the IPMC needs deconstructing.
>I believe it finds it difficult to come to a decision when unusual
>circumstance arises, but most of the time it does fine.
>
>I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find
>sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will
>scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a
>typical
>mentor, most of us need sleep.
>
>I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the
>incubation
>process is broken.  Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems
>of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or
>that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in.
>Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus
>to
>the board. Moving problems does not solve them.
>
>Ross
>
>Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
>On 29 Mar 2013 16:51, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> [Note subject line change for Benson]
>>
>>
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
>> To: general <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>>
>> >We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to
>> >IPMC. The amount of work the board does on x podlings weach month is
>>less
>> >than the work they do on x TLPs.
>>
>> Yeah I guess this is the crux.
>>
>> I respect your opinion, but honestly feel strongly for my own too :)
>> No worries, such is life.
>>
>> >That is without the IPMC addressing issues
>> >that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes
>> >necessary.
>>
>> Well yeah that's the point. I've gone into details, ad nauseum. They are
>> literally extrapolated on my proposal and in numerous email threads too.
>> I've done the work to document them.
>>
>> >
>> >There are problems of efficiency, that is what I believe is the
>>problem.
>> >But as I said we need to agree to differ at this time.
>>
>> Without knowing the specifics, saying that we differ I don't think is
>> Constructive at least on my end. IOW, I don't think it's anything that a
>> bar camp, with some
>> good IPA wouldn't solve ^_^
>>
>> >
>> >Where I differ from you is that not when  each podling had 3 active and
>> >engaged mentors, all would be good in those cases. That is rarely the
>>case
>> >though.
>>
>> Ross, if it's rarely the case, I wouldn't be here helping 6 podlings at
>> the moment in the Incubator (and those podlings wouldn't have all come
>>to
>> me
>> asking me directly to help mentor). I'm talking about 14 podlings over
>> the last few years. Here you go I'll enumerate:
>>
>> ---graduated
>> OODT
>> Airavata
>> SIS
>> Gora
>> Lucy
>> Giraph
>>
>> cTAKES
>> Any23
>>
>> ---current
>> HDT
>> Mesos
>> Tez
>> Knox
>> Climate
>> Tajo
>>
>>
>> >Therefore your proposal means either a reduction in the number of
>> >accepted projects (problem: how do we know which to accept),
>> > a reduction in
>> >the quality of TLPs (problem: reduction in perceived quality of all ASF
>> >brands), or a bigger oversight role for the board (problem: will the
>>board
>> >accept this?)
>>
>> The above is anecdotal -- the board has scaled from 90 projects a few
>> years ago to
>> 137 currently over that time. Based on that, I don't think any of the 3
>> above
>> suggestions will happen.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> >
>> >For me the first option is the only outcome that can be considered. If
>> >that
>> >is a desired change (it is not for me) then your proposal is great. For
>> >now
>> >though the change I want is a more efficient IPMC and this is why we
>>need
>> >to agree to differ at least until more of the IPMC have a stomach for
>> >radical change.
>> >
>> >Ross
>> >
>> >Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
>> >On 29 Mar 2013 01:49, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey Ross,
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >>
>> >> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>> >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
>><ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> >> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
>> >> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> >> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>> >>
>> >> >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many
>> >>actions
>> >> >each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded.
>> >>That
>> >> >is why the IPMC submits a board report.
>> >>
>> >> What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1]
>> >>outside of
>> >> what the board already does for PMCs? I count a total of 0 in the
>>right
>> >> hand
>> >> column of my table.
>> >>
>> >> Being specific myself:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Directors review the IPMC report, and are charged (at least the
>> >>Director
>> >> shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with
>> >> reviewing
>> >> the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion
>> >>before
>> >> about
>> >> removing specific podling reports, and only leaving the summary --
>>this
>> >> was nixed.
>> >> Directors are still charged with reviewing podling individual
>>reports,
>> >> same as
>> >> they are with actual project reports. Thus, if you say there are no
>>more
>> >> podlings,
>> >> as I do in my proposal, please define, specifically, where the extra
>> >>work
>> >> is?
>> >>
>> >> 2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little
>> >>centralized
>> >> authority.
>> >> Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka!
>>Fix
>> >>it
>> >> yourself,
>> >> PMC! OK, so with that said, what's the problem then by saying, no
>>more
>> >> podlings,
>> >> there are simply PMCs? New projects come in to the ASF via steps 3-5
>>in
>> >>my
>> >> proposal --
>> >> through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of
>> >> merit, community, etc,
>> >> guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready,
>> >>the
>> >> board VOTEs
>> >> on the incoming project(s). This is true today. Incubator "podlings"
>>are
>> >> *not officially
>> >> endorsed projects of the ASF* until they are turned into TLPs by
>>board
>> >> resolution.
>> >> Again, so what's changed?
>> >>
>> >> What's even more hilarious and illustrative of the guise towards
>> >> decentralization
>> >> is that there have been discussions within this very same thread that
>> >> instead of
>> >> telling the board there are problems with the Incubator, that we
>>should
>> >> "fix them ourselves"
>> >> here. Hehe. Kind of a reflexive but powerful look in the mirror about
>> >>the
>> >> desire
>> >> to move *away* from centralization.
>> >>
>> >> Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the
>> >>goal
>> >> of the ASF
>> >> is for the PMCs to be self governing? The "Apache way" is intimated
>> >> through tribal
>> >> knowledge of its members. Activeness of a member (and 3 of them on a
>> >>PMC)
>> >> is something
>> >> that the board is aware of, so these things will get caught at
>>project
>> >> creation, and/or
>> >> through personnel additions incrementally.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson
>>has
>> >> >stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all
>>this
>> >>up
>> >> >again. For now lets agree to differ.
>> >>
>> >> No problem -- I think we're closer than it seems, but yes, I'm fine
>>with
>> >> dropping it.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>> >>
>> >>[..snip..]
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 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 Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>]

Chris,

The fundamental issue is that I don't agree the IPMC needs deconstructing.
I believe it finds it difficult to come to a decision when unusual
circumstance arises, but most of the time it does fine.

I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find
sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will
scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a typical
mentor, most of us need sleep.

I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the incubation
process is broken.  Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems
of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or
that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in.
Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus to
the board. Moving problems does not solve them.

Ross

Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 29 Mar 2013 16:51, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> [Note subject line change for Benson]
>
>
> Hi Ross,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
> To: general <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>
> >We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to
> >IPMC. The amount of work the board does on x podlings weach month is less
> >than the work they do on x TLPs.
>
> Yeah I guess this is the crux.
>
> I respect your opinion, but honestly feel strongly for my own too :)
> No worries, such is life.
>
> >That is without the IPMC addressing issues
> >that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes
> >necessary.
>
> Well yeah that's the point. I've gone into details, ad nauseum. They are
> literally extrapolated on my proposal and in numerous email threads too.
> I've done the work to document them.
>
> >
> >There are problems of efficiency, that is what I believe is the problem.
> >But as I said we need to agree to differ at this time.
>
> Without knowing the specifics, saying that we differ I don't think is
> Constructive at least on my end. IOW, I don't think it's anything that a
> bar camp, with some
> good IPA wouldn't solve ^_^
>
> >
> >Where I differ from you is that not when  each podling had 3 active and
> >engaged mentors, all would be good in those cases. That is rarely the case
> >though.
>
> Ross, if it's rarely the case, I wouldn't be here helping 6 podlings at
> the moment in the Incubator (and those podlings wouldn't have all come to
> me
> asking me directly to help mentor). I'm talking about 14 podlings over
> the last few years. Here you go I'll enumerate:
>
> ---graduated
> OODT
> Airavata
> SIS
> Gora
> Lucy
> Giraph
>
> cTAKES
> Any23
>
> ---current
> HDT
> Mesos
> Tez
> Knox
> Climate
> Tajo
>
>
> >Therefore your proposal means either a reduction in the number of
> >accepted projects (problem: how do we know which to accept),
> > a reduction in
> >the quality of TLPs (problem: reduction in perceived quality of all ASF
> >brands), or a bigger oversight role for the board (problem: will the board
> >accept this?)
>
> The above is anecdotal -- the board has scaled from 90 projects a few
> years ago to
> 137 currently over that time. Based on that, I don't think any of the 3
> above
> suggestions will happen.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> >
> >For me the first option is the only outcome that can be considered. If
> >that
> >is a desired change (it is not for me) then your proposal is great. For
> >now
> >though the change I want is a more efficient IPMC and this is why we need
> >to agree to differ at least until more of the IPMC have a stomach for
> >radical change.
> >
> >Ross
> >
> >Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> >On 29 Mar 2013 01:49, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Ross,
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
> >> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
> >>
> >> >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many
> >>actions
> >> >each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded.
> >>That
> >> >is why the IPMC submits a board report.
> >>
> >> What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1]
> >>outside of
> >> what the board already does for PMCs? I count a total of 0 in the right
> >> hand
> >> column of my table.
> >>
> >> Being specific myself:
> >>
> >> 1. Directors review the IPMC report, and are charged (at least the
> >>Director
> >> shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with
> >> reviewing
> >> the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion
> >>before
> >> about
> >> removing specific podling reports, and only leaving the summary -- this
> >> was nixed.
> >> Directors are still charged with reviewing podling individual reports,
> >> same as
> >> they are with actual project reports. Thus, if you say there are no more
> >> podlings,
> >> as I do in my proposal, please define, specifically, where the extra
> >>work
> >> is?
> >>
> >> 2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little
> >>centralized
> >> authority.
> >> Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka! Fix
> >>it
> >> yourself,
> >> PMC! OK, so with that said, what's the problem then by saying, no more
> >> podlings,
> >> there are simply PMCs? New projects come in to the ASF via steps 3-5 in
> >>my
> >> proposal --
> >> through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of
> >> merit, community, etc,
> >> guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready,
> >>the
> >> board VOTEs
> >> on the incoming project(s). This is true today. Incubator "podlings" are
> >> *not officially
> >> endorsed projects of the ASF* until they are turned into TLPs by board
> >> resolution.
> >> Again, so what's changed?
> >>
> >> What's even more hilarious and illustrative of the guise towards
> >> decentralization
> >> is that there have been discussions within this very same thread that
> >> instead of
> >> telling the board there are problems with the Incubator, that we should
> >> "fix them ourselves"
> >> here. Hehe. Kind of a reflexive but powerful look in the mirror about
> >>the
> >> desire
> >> to move *away* from centralization.
> >>
> >> Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the
> >>goal
> >> of the ASF
> >> is for the PMCs to be self governing? The "Apache way" is intimated
> >> through tribal
> >> knowledge of its members. Activeness of a member (and 3 of them on a
> >>PMC)
> >> is something
> >> that the board is aware of, so these things will get caught at project
> >> creation, and/or
> >> through personnel additions incrementally.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
> >> >stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all this
> >>up
> >> >again. For now lets agree to differ.
> >>
> >> No problem -- I think we're closer than it seems, but yes, I'm fine with
> >> dropping it.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
> >>
> >>[..snip..]
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
>
>