Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:45, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>> And if the Mentors aren't being active, voting, etc., then *that* is what
>> needs to be addressed.
>
> As I've repeatedly stated before (here and elsewhere), in the podlings
> I've been recently involved with, having three mentors isn't the
> issue.  It's the PMC members who aren't involved sticking their nose
> in and trying to poison the community.
>
>> We have one of the largest PMCs in the ASF.  If we
>
> I view this as potentially the crux of the problem - people who aren't
> stakeholders in the community shouldn't have a say.  Right now, they
> feel they do.  So, if we want to mandate at least 3 mentors - fine,
> but that must come at the cost of telling the rest of the IPMC to go
> away - unless they actively contribute to the community and earn
> merit...of course.  -- justin

I threw out a radical idea on IRC and a few of us walked through it.
At its core, it solves the "peanut gallery" problem that you're
talking about.

Consider this:

Make the podling a TLP comprised of *only* ASF Members, with at least
*three* minimum (preferably more, to deal with idle times). The
podling committers are invited onto the private@$podling.apache.org
mailing list, but have non-binding votes. They are there for private
discussion, to offer non-binding votes on committers, and to "see" how
a private mailing is used and how it is NOT used.

Since you have (at least) three people on the PMC, you can accomplish
all necessary business: releases, adding accounts, and deciding to ask
the Board for your "graduation".

The mailing lists can be in the "right place", but can have footers
attached noting the "incubation" status. The $podling.apache.org
website "should" redirect to (say)
incubator.apache.org/projects/$podling and have all the standard
disclaimers. At graduation, they get the apache.org site and a few
redirects are put in place. Releases should also have all the same
caveats, warnings, and disclaimers.

Graduation could simply be a TLP deciding to add the rest of the
committers to its PMC and asking infrastructure to create the website,
etc. Or it could require a Board resolution which also mass-adds PMC
members. It's kind of unclear how much oversight the Board should have
on the graduation (note that the (pseudo) TLP will be filing reports
just like any other TLP, so the Board sees its progress).

This pattern can be documented by the Incubator or the Community
Development project. Doesn't matter, but it would certainly be
standardized much like we're standardizing within the Incubator
itself.

Restrictions like those on websites or releases could be relaxed. It
was a fair question to ask, "why keep those in place? what are we
trying to protect?"

Using this model decentralizes the process, removes vocal minorities,
allows for better tuning of a PMC process to its community, and breaks
down the Incubator umbrella project.

Finding 3+ Members to be on these mini/pseudo TLPs would be quite
difficult. I don't think this kind of process would be available or
workable to *all* podlings. But for projects with active Member
support, this could be a valid approach (tho what does it say about
projects without this kind of active support?). Obviously, we'd also
need Board buy-in for the construction of these TLPs (tho, it *is*
only comprised of Members).

Thoughts?

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> So basically you are moving more towards Joe's proposal, that the PPMC would
> have the binding VOTEs in e.g., new committers/PMC members, and on releases?
> Of course, with the caveats below, as you mention, i.e., the observers can
> "observe" and step in where necessary, but ultimately, they're there to
> ensure things are going great, and not to get in the way, unless they
> aren't? +1 to that.

Yes, I know Joe was looking to only try something small and
incremental.  Given its history, a small incremental change in process
is probably right for Thrift, but perhaps we can use OODT as an
experiment for something even more bonkers.  I don't see how we have
much to lose - we've already been taken out to the woodshed once by
the Incubator PMC.  =)

> +1. So our OODT "observers" would be:
>
> You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me?
>
> PPMC stays the same, but they are given:
>
> * binding release/committer VOTEs

Yes, I think so.

Perhaps to satisfy the governance rules, the "observers" (in the eyes
of the Board, the PMC for the TLP) "certify" the votes from the PPMC
(in the eyes of the PMC, the real ones).  So, maybe it's not directly
a binding vote, but the expectation is that the "observers" are meant
to only "certify" and *not* provide technical oversight - unless they
are *also* part of that PPMC.

> In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the
> mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but
> IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me
> on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay
> attention, I think we'll be great.

Yes.

>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
>
> If my interpretation above is correct, big +1 from me.

I think we could perhaps make something workable from this.  Dunno.
Need to see who else chimes in...hey, a message from Greg.  =)  --
justin

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[David M Woollard <wo...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Sorry if I'm late to the party, but my 2 cents...

The more I read about this, the more I latch onto Justin's "Observers" notion. As a non-Apache Member, non-IPMC, PPMC member for OODT, I feel like I am qualified to vote on a release in the sense that I am closer to the code than Justin (sorry to pick on you, but I think I'm just parroting what you have been saying), but I also would love to have more experienced hands looking at other aspects (most notably in my mind are the various legal aspects). 

In the end, I think that it takes both of these types of input to get what I'd call an "informed" vote. But all of this discussion in my mind hinges on the fundamental problems... good mentors and the notion of etiquette, both of which have previously been mentioned on all of these intwined threads. 

Realistically, as long as an individual podling is open to the entire incubation community, you will find some rules hawk that really believes by invoking article 237 of document XYZ they are helping to instruct in the Apache way. It's in cases where this happens that I would ask a mentor (someone I know who has even a slight investment in my podling's success), to sort the wheat from the chaff. Also MHO, but it strikes me that being part of the community, rather than in some sort of over-lord position, is more in line with the flat structure that is an important part of the Apache way.

> If we ran it with the intention that the PMC is there to solely
> provide non-technical oversight and that the PPMC does the actual
> work, I think that's something I could live with and address my
> concerns in the overall process.


+1. Being the kind of person who likes to trust people, I'm fine with a informal agreement. If you feel like you can contribute technically, then I would love to hear what you had to say and if you just want to comment on process, I think that's A-OK too. IMO, as long as you have taken some step to be part of the specific podling, then you get to say anything you want (you are part of the community). 

Like Chris, I would be up for trying something with OODT. Any proposal that we can work, even if just by general agreement, where we can logically divide technical oversight from non-technical and also protect us from random drive-bys gets my vote.  

-Dave


On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.
> 
> Of course.  It's always seemed awkward if you can't contribute
> technically to suddenly have a binding vote.  I'm sure if I *wanted*
> to learn how to build something with Maven, I could.  But, why?  =)
> 
> So, it makes me leery on being forced to cast a vote on a release - on
> par with those who have actually tested it and know something about
> the codebase.  The standard that I force myself to adhere to on
> Subversion and httpd for example would be something that I'd fall
> short with in OODT.
> 
>> The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3)
>> ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member,
>> OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I
>> propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight
>> into this community)
> 
> Sure.  It's just that Chris and I have discussed the pain points in
> the Incubation process, so we're on the lookout for making it easier
> on us.  =)  Plus, the experience with Subversion also showed me where
> things break down too.
> 
>> I'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs.
>> Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of:
>> justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also
>> on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but
>> would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes
>> across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as
>> those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to
>> consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference
>> between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference.
> 
> If we ran it with the intention that the PMC is there to solely
> provide non-technical oversight and that the PPMC does the actual
> work, I think that's something I could live with and address my
> concerns in the overall process.
> 
> I don't think this is at odds with what you are saying nor would it
> run afoul of any corporate structures.  It could just be the informal
> agreement between the PMC members that the PPMC should be the ones
> making the technical decisions.  (If some other set of mentors wanted
> to run it differently, they could.  But, this separation is one I
> could live with myself.)
> 
>> The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more
>> peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group.
> 
> Right.  The listed members of the PMC are on the line dealing with the
> Board.  (Hmm...would the PMC require a VP?  I guess so.)  If the Board
> has an issue with how they are running things, the Board can chime in.
> 
>> I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but
>> I presume that the community can figure that out and provide
>> information for future projects and communities.
> 
> I very much like the Incubator providing what the general checklist
> form would look like.  The Board could receive the checklist, review
> it, and then vote on the Graduation resolution.
> 
> It'd also raise the oversight of the podlings (in this structure) back
> to the Board...which is likely a good thing so as things don't get
> hidden.  -- justin

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[David M Woollard <wo...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Sorry if I'm late to the party, but my 2 cents...

The more I read about this, the more I latch onto Justin's "Observers" notion. As a non-Apache Member, non-IPMC, PPMC member for OODT, I feel like I am qualified to vote on a release in the sense that I am closer to the code than Justin (sorry to pick on you, but I think I'm just parroting what you have been saying), but I also would love to have more experienced hands looking at other aspects (most notably in my mind are the various legal aspects). 

In the end, I think that it takes both of these types of input to get what I'd call an "informed" vote. But all of this discussion in my mind hinges on the fundamental problems... good mentors and the notion of etiquette, both of which have previously been mentioned on all of these intwined threads. 

Realistically, as long as an individual podling is open to the entire incubation community, you will find some rules hawk that really believes by invoking article 237 of document XYZ they are helping to instruct in the Apache way. It's in cases where this happens that I would ask a mentor (someone I know who has even a slight investment in my podling's success), to sort the wheat from the chaff. Also MHO, but it strikes me that being part of the community, rather than in some sort of over-lord position, is more in line with the flat structure that is an important part of the Apache way.

> If we ran it with the intention that the PMC is there to solely
> provide non-technical oversight and that the PPMC does the actual
> work, I think that's something I could live with and address my
> concerns in the overall process.


+1. Being the kind of person who likes to trust people, I'm fine with a informal agreement. If you feel like you can contribute technically, then I would love to hear what you had to say and if you just want to comment on process, I think that's A-OK too. IMO, as long as you have taken some step to be part of the specific podling, then you get to say anything you want (you are part of the community). 

Like Chris, I would be up for trying something with OODT. Any proposal that we can work, even if just by general agreement, where we can logically divide technical oversight from non-technical and also protect us from random drive-bys gets my vote.  

-Dave


On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.
> 
> Of course.  It's always seemed awkward if you can't contribute
> technically to suddenly have a binding vote.  I'm sure if I *wanted*
> to learn how to build something with Maven, I could.  But, why?  =)
> 
> So, it makes me leery on being forced to cast a vote on a release - on
> par with those who have actually tested it and know something about
> the codebase.  The standard that I force myself to adhere to on
> Subversion and httpd for example would be something that I'd fall
> short with in OODT.
> 
>> The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3)
>> ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member,
>> OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I
>> propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight
>> into this community)
> 
> Sure.  It's just that Chris and I have discussed the pain points in
> the Incubation process, so we're on the lookout for making it easier
> on us.  =)  Plus, the experience with Subversion also showed me where
> things break down too.
> 
>> I'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs.
>> Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of:
>> justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also
>> on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but
>> would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes
>> across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as
>> those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to
>> consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference
>> between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference.
> 
> If we ran it with the intention that the PMC is there to solely
> provide non-technical oversight and that the PPMC does the actual
> work, I think that's something I could live with and address my
> concerns in the overall process.
> 
> I don't think this is at odds with what you are saying nor would it
> run afoul of any corporate structures.  It could just be the informal
> agreement between the PMC members that the PPMC should be the ones
> making the technical decisions.  (If some other set of mentors wanted
> to run it differently, they could.  But, this separation is one I
> could live with myself.)
> 
>> The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more
>> peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group.
> 
> Right.  The listed members of the PMC are on the line dealing with the
> Board.  (Hmm...would the PMC require a VP?  I guess so.)  If the Board
> has an issue with how they are running things, the Board can chime in.
> 
>> I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but
>> I presume that the community can figure that out and provide
>> information for future projects and communities.
> 
> I very much like the Incubator providing what the general checklist
> form would look like.  The Board could receive the checklist, review
> it, and then vote on the Graduation resolution.
> 
> It'd also raise the oversight of the podlings (in this structure) back
> to the Board...which is likely a good thing so as things don't get
> hidden.  -- justin

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.

Of course.  It's always seemed awkward if you can't contribute
technically to suddenly have a binding vote.  I'm sure if I *wanted*
to learn how to build something with Maven, I could.  But, why?  =)

So, it makes me leery on being forced to cast a vote on a release - on
par with those who have actually tested it and know something about
the codebase.  The standard that I force myself to adhere to on
Subversion and httpd for example would be something that I'd fall
short with in OODT.

> The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3)
> ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member,
> OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I
> propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight
> into this community)

Sure.  It's just that Chris and I have discussed the pain points in
the Incubation process, so we're on the lookout for making it easier
on us.  =)  Plus, the experience with Subversion also showed me where
things break down too.

> I'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs.
> Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of:
> justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also
> on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but
> would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes
> across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as
> those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to
> consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference
> between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference.

If we ran it with the intention that the PMC is there to solely
provide non-technical oversight and that the PPMC does the actual
work, I think that's something I could live with and address my
concerns in the overall process.

I don't think this is at odds with what you are saying nor would it
run afoul of any corporate structures.  It could just be the informal
agreement between the PMC members that the PPMC should be the ones
making the technical decisions.  (If some other set of mentors wanted
to run it differently, they could.  But, this separation is one I
could live with myself.)

> The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more
> peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group.

Right.  The listed members of the PMC are on the line dealing with the
Board.  (Hmm...would the PMC require a VP?  I guess so.)  If the Board
has an issue with how they are running things, the Board can chime in.

> I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but
> I presume that the community can figure that out and provide
> information for future projects and communities.

I very much like the Incubator providing what the general checklist
form would look like.  The Board could receive the checklist, review
it, and then vote on the Graduation resolution.

It'd also raise the oversight of the podlings (in this structure) back
to the Board...which is likely a good thing so as things don't get
hidden.  -- justin

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.

Of course.  It's always seemed awkward if you can't contribute
technically to suddenly have a binding vote.  I'm sure if I *wanted*
to learn how to build something with Maven, I could.  But, why?  =)

So, it makes me leery on being forced to cast a vote on a release - on
par with those who have actually tested it and know something about
the codebase.  The standard that I force myself to adhere to on
Subversion and httpd for example would be something that I'd fall
short with in OODT.

> The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3)
> ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member,
> OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I
> propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight
> into this community)

Sure.  It's just that Chris and I have discussed the pain points in
the Incubation process, so we're on the lookout for making it easier
on us.  =)  Plus, the experience with Subversion also showed me where
things break down too.

> I'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs.
> Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of:
> justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also
> on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but
> would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes
> across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as
> those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to
> consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference
> between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference.

If we ran it with the intention that the PMC is there to solely
provide non-technical oversight and that the PPMC does the actual
work, I think that's something I could live with and address my
concerns in the overall process.

I don't think this is at odds with what you are saying nor would it
run afoul of any corporate structures.  It could just be the informal
agreement between the PMC members that the PPMC should be the ones
making the technical decisions.  (If some other set of mentors wanted
to run it differently, they could.  But, this separation is one I
could live with myself.)

> The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more
> peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group.

Right.  The listed members of the PMC are on the line dealing with the
Board.  (Hmm...would the PMC require a VP?  I guess so.)  If the Board
has an issue with how they are running things, the Board can chime in.

> I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but
> I presume that the community can figure that out and provide
> information for future projects and communities.

I very much like the Incubator providing what the general checklist
form would look like.  The Board could receive the checklist, review
it, and then vote on the Graduation resolution.

It'd also raise the oversight of the podlings (in this structure) back
to the Board...which is likely a good thing so as things don't get
hidden.  -- justin

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

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hey Justin,
>
> Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:
>
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
>> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
>> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
>> vote?

You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.

The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3)
ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member,
OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I
propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight
into this community)

>...
>> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
>> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>>  Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
>> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
>> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
>> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
>> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
>> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
>> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
>
> +1. So our OODT "observers" would be:
>
> You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me?
>
> PPMC stays the same, but they are given:
>
> * binding release/committer VOTEs
>
> In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the
> mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but
> IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me
> on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay
> attention, I think we'll be great.

I'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs.
Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of:
justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also
on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but
would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes
across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as
those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to
consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference
between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference.

The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more
peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group.

I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but
I presume that the community can figure that out and provide
information for future projects and communities.

>...

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hey Justin,
>
> Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:
>
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
>> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
>> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
>> vote?

You know when to vote and *how* to vote. I see no reason to deny your vote.

The (only) problem to arise would be if OODT was at the minimum of (3)
ASF Members, and your vote was required. With Chris becoming a Member,
OODT is at 5 Members that could comprise the mini/pseudo TLP that I
propose. (maybe there are others interested, but I have zero insight
into this community)

>...
>> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
>> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>>  Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
>> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
>> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
>> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
>> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
>> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
>> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
>
> +1. So our OODT "observers" would be:
>
> You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me?
>
> PPMC stays the same, but they are given:
>
> * binding release/committer VOTEs
>
> In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the
> mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but
> IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me
> on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay
> attention, I think we'll be great.

I'm not sure that I'm reading the above properly, but... whatevs.
Under my proposed TLP-based approach, the PMC would be comprised of:
justin, jean, ross, ian, chris. The current committers (who are also
on the PPMC, presumably) would be invited to the private@ list, but
would not be on the PMC. Thus, they would have non-binding votes
across all project decisions. But that should not be a problem as
those PMC members also understand how to build and listen to
consensus. If there are issues in the community, then the difference
between binding and non-binding votes makes *zero* difference.

The (podling) project/PMC would report directly to the Board. No more
peanut gallery, or a second-guessing group.

I do agree there is a lot of hand-waving around "how to graduate", but
I presume that the community can figure that out and provide
information for future projects and communities.

>...

Cheers,
-g

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> So basically you are moving more towards Joe's proposal, that the PPMC would
> have the binding VOTEs in e.g., new committers/PMC members, and on releases?
> Of course, with the caveats below, as you mention, i.e., the observers can
> "observe" and step in where necessary, but ultimately, they're there to
> ensure things are going great, and not to get in the way, unless they
> aren't? +1 to that.

Yes, I know Joe was looking to only try something small and
incremental.  Given its history, a small incremental change in process
is probably right for Thrift, but perhaps we can use OODT as an
experiment for something even more bonkers.  I don't see how we have
much to lose - we've already been taken out to the woodshed once by
the Incubator PMC.  =)

> +1. So our OODT "observers" would be:
>
> You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me?
>
> PPMC stays the same, but they are given:
>
> * binding release/committer VOTEs

Yes, I think so.

Perhaps to satisfy the governance rules, the "observers" (in the eyes
of the Board, the PMC for the TLP) "certify" the votes from the PPMC
(in the eyes of the PMC, the real ones).  So, maybe it's not directly
a binding vote, but the expectation is that the "observers" are meant
to only "certify" and *not* provide technical oversight - unless they
are *also* part of that PPMC.

> In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the
> mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but
> IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me
> on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay
> attention, I think we'll be great.

Yes.

>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
>
> If my interpretation above is correct, big +1 from me.

I think we could perhaps make something workable from this.  Dunno.
Need to see who else chimes in...hey, a message from Greg.  =)  --
justin

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

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

LOL know problem Ross ;)


On 8/17/10 1:46 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@apache.org> wrote:

Sorry damned iPhone autocorrect. First word should be "I like"

Sent from my mobile device.

On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:38, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:

> Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board reports by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to a piece of electronic paper.
>
> Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the project debs want this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF and the project to proceed.
>
> I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of the project (unless also a committer of course)
>
> This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about social an community health not technical health, right?
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>
>> [ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
>> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
>> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
>> context in for those on general@incubator ]
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>>>
>>> Hey Justin,
>>>
>>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>>>> gallery" oversight.
>>>>
>>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>>>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>>>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>>>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>>>
>>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
>>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
>>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
>>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
>>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
>>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
>>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
>>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
>>> IPMC)
>>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
>>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
>>> ready =
>>>  - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>>>  - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
>>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
>>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>>>
>>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
>>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
>>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
>>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
>>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
>>> up Rishi!).
>>>
>>> Is that your take too?
>>
>> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.
>>
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
>> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
>> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
>> vote?
>>
>> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
>> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
>> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
>> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
>> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
>> done.
>>
>> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
>> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
>> it or not.  =)
>>
>> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
>> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
>> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
>> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
>> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
>> should have a binding vote.
>>
>> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
>> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>> Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
>> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
>> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
>> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
>> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
>> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
>> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
>>
>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
>> -- justin
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>

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




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

LOL know problem Ross ;)


On 8/17/10 1:46 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@apache.org> wrote:

Sorry damned iPhone autocorrect. First word should be "I like"

Sent from my mobile device.

On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:38, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:

> Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board reports by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to a piece of electronic paper.
>
> Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the project debs want this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF and the project to proceed.
>
> I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of the project (unless also a committer of course)
>
> This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about social an community health not technical health, right?
>
> Sent from my mobile device.
>
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>
>> [ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
>> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
>> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
>> context in for those on general@incubator ]
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>>>
>>> Hey Justin,
>>>
>>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>>>> gallery" oversight.
>>>>
>>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>>>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>>>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>>>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>>>
>>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
>>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
>>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
>>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
>>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
>>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
>>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
>>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
>>> IPMC)
>>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
>>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
>>> ready =
>>>  - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>>>  - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
>>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
>>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>>>
>>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
>>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
>>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
>>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
>>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
>>> up Rishi!).
>>>
>>> Is that your take too?
>>
>> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.
>>
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
>> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
>> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
>> vote?
>>
>> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
>> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
>> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
>> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
>> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
>> done.
>>
>> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
>> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
>> it or not.  =)
>>
>> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
>> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
>> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
>> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
>> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
>> should have a binding vote.
>>
>> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
>> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>> Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
>> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
>> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
>> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
>> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
>> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
>> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
>>
>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
>> -- justin
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>

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




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Sorry damned iPhone autocorrect. First word should be "I like"

Sent from my mobile device.

On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:38, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:

> Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board reports by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to a piece of electronic paper. 
> 
> Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the project debs want this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF and the project to proceed. 
> 
> I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of the project (unless also a committer of course)
> 
> This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about social an community health not technical health, right?
> 
> Sent from my mobile device.
> 
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> 
>> [ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
>> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
>> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
>> context in for those on general@incubator ]
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>>> 
>>> Hey Justin,
>>> 
>>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>>>> gallery" oversight.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>>>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>>>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>>>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>>> 
>>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
>>> something like:
>>> 
>>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
>>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
>>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
>>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
>>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
>>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
>>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
>>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
>>> IPMC)
>>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
>>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
>>> ready =
>>>  - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>>>  - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
>>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
>>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>>> 
>>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
>>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
>>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
>>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
>>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
>>> up Rishi!).
>>> 
>>> Is that your take too?
>> 
>> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.
>> 
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
>> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
>> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
>> vote?
>> 
>> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
>> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
>> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
>> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
>> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
>> done.
>> 
>> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
>> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
>> it or not.  =)
>> 
>> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
>> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
>> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
>> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
>> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
>> should have a binding vote.
>> 
>> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
>> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>> Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
>> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
>> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
>> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
>> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
>> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
>> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
>> 
>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
>> -- justin
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> 

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

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Sorry damned iPhone autocorrect. First word should be "I like"

Sent from my mobile device.

On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:38, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:

> Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board reports by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to a piece of electronic paper. 
> 
> Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the project debs want this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF and the project to proceed. 
> 
> I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of the project (unless also a committer of course)
> 
> This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about social an community health not technical health, right?
> 
> Sent from my mobile device.
> 
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> 
>> [ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
>> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
>> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
>> context in for those on general@incubator ]
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>>> 
>>> Hey Justin,
>>> 
>>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>>>> gallery" oversight.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>>>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>>>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>>>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>>> 
>>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
>>> something like:
>>> 
>>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
>>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
>>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
>>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
>>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
>>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
>>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>>  - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
>>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
>>> IPMC)
>>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
>>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
>>> ready =
>>>  - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>>>  - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
>>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
>>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>>> 
>>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
>>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
>>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
>>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
>>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
>>> up Rishi!).
>>> 
>>> Is that your take too?
>> 
>> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.
>> 
>> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
>> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
>> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
>> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
>> vote?
>> 
>> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
>> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
>> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
>> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
>> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
>> done.
>> 
>> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
>> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
>> it or not.  =)
>> 
>> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
>> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
>> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
>> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
>> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
>> should have a binding vote.
>> 
>> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
>> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>> Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
>> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
>> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
>> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
>> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
>> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
>> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
>> 
>> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
>> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
>> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
>> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
>> -- justin
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board reports by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to a piece of electronic paper. 

Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the project debs want this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF and the project to proceed. 

I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of the project (unless also a committer of course)

This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about social an community health not technical health, right?

Sent from my mobile device.

On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:

> [ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
> context in for those on general@incubator ]
> 
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>> 
>> Hey Justin,
>> 
>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>>> gallery" oversight.
>>> 
>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 
>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>> 
>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
>> something like:
>> 
>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>   - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>   - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
>> IPMC)
>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
>> ready =
>>   - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>>   - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>> 
>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
>> up Rishi!).
>> 
>> Is that your take too?
> 
> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.
> 
> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
> vote?
> 
> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
> done.
> 
> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
> it or not.  =)
> 
> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
> should have a binding vote.
> 
> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
> Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
> 
> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
> -- justin
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Unlike the observer role. It's very close to the current signing off of board reports by mentors but forces them to do a little more than put there name to a piece of electronic paper. 

Personally I imagined my binding vote, as a mentor, to indicate a) the project debs want this tongi ahead and b) in my opinion it is sat for the ASF and the project to proceed. 

I didn't imagine my vote having anything to do with the technical aspects of the project (unless also a committer of course)

This is what the board do when approving project reports right? It's about social an community health not technical health, right?

Sent from my mobile device.

On 17 Aug 2010, at 05:56, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:

> [ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
> as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
> and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
> context in for those on general@incubator ]
> 
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>> 
>> Hey Justin,
>> 
>>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>>> gallery" oversight.
>>> 
>>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 
>>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>> 
>> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
>> something like:
>> 
>> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
>> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
>> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
>> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
>> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>   - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
>> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
>> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>>   - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
>> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
>> IPMC)
>> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
>> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
>> ready =
>>   - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>>   - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
>> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
>> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>> 
>> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
>> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
>> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
>> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
>> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
>> up Rishi!).
>> 
>> Is that your take too?
> 
> Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.
> 
> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
> vote?
> 
> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
> done.
> 
> For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
> So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
> it or not.  =)
> 
> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
> should have a binding vote.
> 
> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
> Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)
> 
> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
> -- justin
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

Hey Justin,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:

> 
> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
> vote?
> 
> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
> done.

So basically you are moving more towards Joe's proposal, that the PPMC would
have the binding VOTEs in e.g., new committers/PMC members, and on releases?
Of course, with the caveats below, as you mention, i.e., the observers can
"observe" and step in where necessary, but ultimately, they're there to
ensure things are going great, and not to get in the way, unless they
aren't? +1 to that.

> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
> should have a binding vote.

No way you'd ever be a smuck in my book. And don't worry I'll get you on the
Maven bandwagon! ^_^

> 
> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>  Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)

+1. So our OODT "observers" would be:

You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me?

PPMC stays the same, but they are given:

* binding release/committer VOTEs

In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the
mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but
IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me
on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay
attention, I think we'll be great.

I've heard a lot of talk in not just this thread, but over the past day
about podlings with mentors that aren't active. Well, if the mentors aren't
active, then they shouldn't be a mentor and we should make room for those
that have the cycles and that are ready to "observe".

> 
> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...

If my interpretation above is correct, big +1 from me.

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.Mattmann@jpl.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: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

Hey Justin,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. My comments below:

> 
> See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
> honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
> known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
> the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
> vote?
> 
> I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
> have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
> having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
> straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
> keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
> done.

So basically you are moving more towards Joe's proposal, that the PPMC would
have the binding VOTEs in e.g., new committers/PMC members, and on releases?
Of course, with the caveats below, as you mention, i.e., the observers can
"observe" and step in where necessary, but ultimately, they're there to
ensure things are going great, and not to get in the way, unless they
aren't? +1 to that.

> Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
> being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
> my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
> you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
> who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
> should have a binding vote.

No way you'd ever be a smuck in my book. And don't worry I'll get you on the
Maven bandwagon! ^_^

> 
> Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
> all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
>  Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
> there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
> witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
> going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
> certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
> on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
> about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)

+1. So our OODT "observers" would be:

You, Jean Frederic, Ross, Ian, and me?

PPMC stays the same, but they are given:

* binding release/committer VOTEs

In this case, observers are just really the mentors, and we move towards the
mentors ensuring all is going well (which they should do now anyways), but
IPMC "ratification" isn't required, and PPMC gets to self-govern. +1 from me
on that, I think that's the right thing to teach, and with mentors that pay
attention, I think we'll be great.

I've heard a lot of talk in not just this thread, but over the past day
about podlings with mentors that aren't active. Well, if the mentors aren't
active, then they shouldn't be a mentor and we should make room for those
that have the cycles and that are ready to "observe".

> 
> Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
> reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
> model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
> combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...

If my interpretation above is correct, big +1 from me.

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.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

[ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
context in for those on general@incubator ]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>
> Hey Justin,
>
>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>
>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>> gallery" oversight.
>>
>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>
> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
> something like:
>
> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>   - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>   - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
> IPMC)
> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
> ready =
>   - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>   - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>
> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
> up Rishi!).
>
> Is that your take too?

Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.

See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
vote?

I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
done.

For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
it or not.  =)

Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
should have a binding vote.

Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
 Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)

Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
-- justin

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

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

[ CCing general@incubator as I think I can now place my finger a bit
as to why I'm discomforted with Greg's proposal in the OODT context ;
and more importantly, another potential experiment at the end; leaving
context in for those on general@incubator ]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> (moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)
>
> Hey Justin,
>
>>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>>
>>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>>> gallery" oversight.
>>
>> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
>> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
>> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
>> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
>> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
>> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
>> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
>> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
>
> To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
> something like:
>
> 1. oodt.apache.org exists today
> 2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
> 3. OODT committers continue as-is
> 5. There is no more IPMC oversight
> 5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>   - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
> consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
> 6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
>   - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
> into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
> IPMC)
> 7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
> up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
> ready =
>   - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
>   - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
> people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
> and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.
>
> OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
> slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
> contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
> from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
> JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
> up Rishi!).
>
> Is that your take too?

Yes, I think that roughly outlines what Greg proposed.

See, here's where I get a bit discomforted by this entire process: I
honestly don't feel that I deserve a "vote" on OODT releases.  I've
known you and Dave for long enough that I have no concerns advising
the OODT community and trying to help out - but...giving me a binding
vote?

I want to encourage a process where the people doing the work get to
have the power.  At the core, that is what Apache is about - and
having doofus's like me casting a vote for a release seems like
straying from that.  I'm *totally* fine turning on "cranky" mode and
keeping the peanut gallery away so ya'll on oodt-dev@ get real work
done.

For Subversion, I was already a full committer and earned my merit.
So, I had zero qualms about giving my $.02 there whether they wanted
it or not.  =)

Given your (Chris) experience with other ASF projects (and, heck,
being a PMC Chair), I can see exactly how the Subversion analogy (in
my head) applies to you.  You're a member, you know how things work,
you have merit within OODT - so, yah, perfect sense.  Smucks like me
who get confuzzled reading Maven build scripts?  Nah, not right that I
should have a binding vote.

Now, could we say that I would act as a "certifier"/"observer" that
all of the major processes were followed?  Heck yah.  No qualms there.
 Here's an analogy I'm coming around to: in a lot of new democracies,
there are "observers" who are sent in to monitor elections.  They
witness the elections, poke around, and make sure nothing unseemly is
going on.  They don't vote, but they do "observe".  They then issue a
certification or report to be filed with the vote.  (I'm catching up
on my backlog of issues of The Economist; just read their article
about nascent democracies in Africa on the plane...)

Hmm, maybe there's something to this "observer" model as this
reconciles my qualms and could provide the basis for an oversight
model.  Does this analogy move the needle for anyone else?  Could a
combination of "mentor" and "observer" be sufficient?  I think so...
-- justin

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

All, for some context on this discussion (for those that aren't subscribed to general@incubator.a.o - and BTW, if you aren't, I'd recommend sending an email to general-subscribe@incubator.a.o, just for the fun of it!), see here [1]. The jist of it is that Joe Schaefer and others like Greg Stein have been proposing ideas ranging from incremental shakeup of the current Incubator process, all the way to Greg's email thread titled "Radical Revamp"). The idea behind this "Radical Revamp" would be that instead of having the Incubator PMC (IPMC) as the sole responsible binding VOTEs for the OODT podling (until we graduate), we would undergo something like the process I threw in steps 1-7 below (Justin correct me if I'm wrong). What's different about that than our existing process? Very little, other than, right if we get 3 binding IPMC VOTEs as part of our OODT incubator podling (e.g., if Justin, myself and Ian vote +1), we still have to check in with the "Incubator PMC" and acknowledge that we as the OODT community (PPMC + mentors) voted for a release or a new committer. What this proposes is removing the step of "checking in" with the IPMC on releases and new committers, and leaving it to the OODT community (PPMC + mentors) to decide ourselves, and self-govern.

Maybe it's too radical, or something that's a risk as Justin puts it, and maybe having the IPMC come in and bless our podling community decisions is the correct thing to do, but I'm open to ideas, and open to participating in this "experiment". I don't see that we have a lot to lose. The Incubator isn't going away anytime soon, but it might be a good learning experience for us to try out some different options as we move towards our goal of TLP.

I'm interested in what others think, of course, after checking the existing context (recall [1]).

Thanks!

Cheers,
Chris


[1] http://s.apache.org/ld



On 8/16/10 9:21 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

(moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)

Hey Justin,

>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>
>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>> gallery" oversight.
>
> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.

+1

>
> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --

To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
something like:

1. oodt.apache.org exists today
2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
3. OODT committers continue as-is
5. There is no more IPMC oversight
5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
   - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
   - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
IPMC)
7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
ready =
   - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
   - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.

OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
up Rishi!).

Is that your take too?

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.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

Oops, forgot Ross in #2 below - of course we'd include Ross too! :)


On 8/16/10 9:21 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

(moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)

Hey Justin,

>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>>
>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>> gallery" oversight.
>
> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.

+1

>
> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --

To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
something like:

1. oodt.apache.org exists today
2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
3. OODT committers continue as-is
5. There is no more IPMC oversight
5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
   - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
   - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
IPMC)
7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
ready =
   - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
   - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.

OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
up Rishi!).

Is that your take too?

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.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment))

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

(moving to oodt-dev@incubator.a.o, context coming in separate email FWD)

Hey Justin,

>> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>> 
>> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
>> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
>> gallery" oversight.
> 
> However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
> as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
> nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
> diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
> there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
> promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.

+1

> 
> At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
> and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
> of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --

To me, all we are signing up for with Greg's proposal is basically to have
something like:

1. oodt.apache.org exists today
2. Ian, Chris, Justin and Jean Frederic are OODT PMC members + committers
3. OODT committers continue as-is
5. There is no more IPMC oversight
5. VOTEs on releases are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
   - OODT committers weigh in on releases and their weigh in is taken into
consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and IPMC)
6. VOTEs on new committers are approved by 3 +1s of OODT PMC members
   - OODT committers weigh in on new committers and their weigh in is taken
into consideration by OODT PMC members (as is done today even with PPMC and
IPMC)
7. When we're ready (we can even keep the same Incubator checklist), we put
up a board resolution to "graduate" into *true* oodt.apache.org TLP. To me,
ready =
   - we've made at least 1 release (we're close!)
   - we've VOTE'd in a couple new committers (keep those patches coming
people!) hopefully with some diversity in mind, but if we don't get there,
and the committers are still vibrant and healthy, then we move forward.

OODT already has a pretty vast user community and healthy community that I'm
slowing working to get signed up over here in the Incubator. We've had
contributions from folks from Children's Hospital (thanks guys!), interest
from other NASA centers (welcome Mark and others!), and some new folks from
JPL stepping up and earning merit (welcome Cameron, and thanks for popping
up Rishi!). 

Is that your take too?

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.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

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

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
>> I suspect the OODT guys might want to try this (it has four ASF
>> Members as Mentors who could comprise the PMC). Subversion would have
>> done this, based on my own thoughts/experiences and knowledge of what
>> the ASF needs/wants.
>
> +1 from me with my OODT hat on.
>
> Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
> $podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
> gallery" oversight.

Generally speaking, I'm supportive of trying different things to break
through the logjam that we currently have within the Incubator.

However, I think we should probably have a discussion on the OODT list
as we should think through what this means and how it'd affect the
nascent community.  With Subversion, it already had a very vibrant,
diverse, and self-governing community - OODT isn't quite there so
there's a bit of a risk there.  Perhaps this will act as a prod to
promote the self-governance - which is ideally what we want anyway.

At the moment, I probably don't have the time necessary to sit down
and lead the conversation within OODT.  That alone does give me a bit
of a reservation about what exactly we're signing up for.  =)  --
justin

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

Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

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

Hey Guys,

> I suspect the OODT guys might want to try this (it has four ASF
> Members as Mentors who could comprise the PMC). Subversion would have
> done this, based on my own thoughts/experiences and knowledge of what
> the ASF needs/wants.

+1 from me with my OODT hat on.

Also, I like Greg's proposal b/c it puts the onus on those (proposed)
$podling.apache.org PMC members who are active, without external "peanut
gallery" oversight.

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.Mattmann@jpl.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: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Greg Stein wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Make the podling a TLP comprised of *only* ASF Members, with at least
>>> *three* minimum (preferably more, to deal with idle times).
>> How does that differ from the current system (given the assumption of 3+
PMC
>> Members), except that it precludes potential oversight from others -- the
>> flipside of "solves the peanut gallery problem" that apparently plagued
>> Subversion?

> Presumably 3+ ASF Members is sufficient oversight. Given these Members
> are the ONLY PMC members, then they must also remain pretty active in
> their podling which implies oversight.

Well, that has been an issue with many podlings so far.  Subversion is an
exception, not the rule, although I don't know that we've got a handle on
the ratio of projects for which getting 3 binding votes isn't an issue.

> My proposal ups that from "3+ PMC members" to "3+ ASF
> Members", which (IMO) is a stronger guarantee.

Greg, *the* most common problem has been IP and release related.  RAT has
fixed a lot of it, but ASF Members were not even remotely immune to the
problem.  Without RAT, I suspect we'd still be mired in the muck, and
needing as many eyes as we've had.

> And do not minimize the peanut gallery problem. That is a very real
> issue

I'd really like to know how widespread it is, other than that it bit a burr
under the saddle of some ASF Members on a few projects.  And I'm still not
minimizing its impact on even a single project, just wondering about
prevalence.

> Empirically speaking... no, you cannot. The peanut gallery gets in the
way.

Let's agree to resolve the peanut gallery issue, and move on to see if there
are any other issues.

> > We could do that now, except that people have previously disliked the
idea
> > of $podling.apache.org being provided prior to graduation, for either
e-mail
> > or web site addresses.  If the consensus is to change that, fine.

> I'm not asking for consensus. I'm proposing a whole new approach.

Yes, but we still need to find out of the Board will agree to providing
$X.apache.org resources, and branding, for provisional projects.

> Yes. Thus, my point that the Board is going to have to weigh in on
> this topic at some point. But it needs some rounds of support and
> beat-downs here on general@ before it is in a reasonable proposal
> state for the Board. We also need some podlings who would like to
> volunteer for this new approach, for the Board to consider.

Well, if it isn't clear, I'm not trying to tear this down on you, and if
OODT wants to give it a go, I'd support the experiment.  But don't we first
need to address ...

> > what *are* the graduation metrics, and who votes on
> > graduation?

> I suspect that the metrics would be defined by the Incubator:
> basically the checklist of considerations already present.

> There could be two ways to graduate:
> 1) the PMC self-graduates
> 2) the PMC proposes graduation to the Board
> I prefer the latter, as a final checkup/signoff to the process. The
> PMC would need to arrive with $materials demonstrating satisfactory
> completion of all incubation requirements.

Is there any role for the Incubator, or is it strictly between the podling
and the Board for this class of podling?

>>> Restrictions like those on websites or releases could be relaxed. It
>>> was a fair question to ask, "why keep those in place? what are we
>>> trying to protect?"
>> Why relax them uniquely for such projects?  And presumably we are
protecting
>> the ASF brand, as well as downstream consumers who rely on our output,
>> including clean licensing, etc.  But getting back to the first point, is
>> there some rationale to relax them for these podlings and not for others?
>> If we can justify them for some, should we re-examine them in general?

> Yup, good questions all. It was a fair point raised on IRC that I'm
> bringing here.

Fair enough.  :-)

>>> Using this model decentralizes the process
>> So does having 3+ PMC Members today.
> The IPMC is anything but decentralized. And empirical evidence shows
> it to peanut-gallery-ism.

Empirical evidence also shows that we rarely hear from most projects except
when they need binding votes or put in a report.  Again, I agree with your
idea of polling the community.

>> Remember that the Board created the Incubator because of problems with
existing
>> projects trying incubation on their own.  But we have learned a lot since
>> then.

> Yups. The Incubator has provided a lot of focus on what we need, what
> kinds of problems arise, and what we don't need.

> I maintain that "additional oversight" is not required given the
> composition of these TLPs membership (all ASF Members).

I may agree with you now, given RAT.  As I've noted before, ASF Members have
not been immune to release issues.  And hopefully we won't come back to
realize that not all ASF Members aren't good at project building.  Not every
ASF Member is you, Justin, Roy, Bertrand, Jukka, etc.  I'm not even sure
that most are.

> Reference Justin's point about the Subversion PMC not recognizing
> their own self-governance. Their initial introduction to the ASF put
> them at the mercy of an invisible and nebulous group called "the
> Incubator Project Management Committee". If the initial intro was a
> self-governing PMC, then I think we wouldn't have the same kinds of
> (admittedly minor) problems with queries about how to get certain
> things done, or if they were allowed.

I'd be cautious about risk / reward ratio related to making structural
changes in response to "minor problems."  That said, I'm interested in your
experiment.  We won't know until we try.

> I suspect the OODT guys might want to try this (it has four ASF
> Members as Mentors who could comprise the PMC).

How long do you think it will take to work this out?  Can we have something
for the Board by the September meeting?

	--- Noel



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

Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:00, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> Make the podling a TLP comprised of *only* ASF Members, with at least
>> *three* minimum (preferably more, to deal with idle times). The
>> podling committers are invited onto the private@$podling.apache.org
>> mailing list, but have non-binding votes. They are there for private
>> discussion, to offer non-binding votes on committers, and to "see" how
>> a private mailing is used and how it is NOT used.
>
> How does that differ from the current system (given the assumption of 3+ PMC
> Members), except that it precludes potential oversight from others -- the
> flipside of "solves the peanut gallery problem" that apparently plagued
> Subversion?

Presumably 3+ ASF Members is sufficient oversight. Given these Members
are the ONLY PMC members, then they must also remain pretty active in
their podling which implies oversight.

"oversight from others" is NOT a goal, when you have 3+ PMC members
already. My proposal ups that from "3+ PMC members" to "3+ ASF
Members", which (IMO) is a stronger guarantee.

(tho, for the most part, IPMC members *are* ASF Members, but Joe's
recent suggestions (which are good!) would alter that balance)

And do not minimize the peanut gallery problem. That is a very real
issue, and the "flipside" as you suggest is not a necessary part of
the process.

>> Since you have (at least) three people on the PMC, you can accomplish
>> all necessary business: releases, adding accounts, and deciding to ask
>> the Board for your "graduation".
>
> Yes.  You can do that today, too, with 3+ PMC Members.

Empirically speaking... no, you cannot. The peanut gallery gets in the way.

>> The mailing lists can be in the "right place", but can have footers
>> attached noting the "incubation" status. The $podling.apache.org
>> website "should" redirect to (say) incubator.apache.org/projects/$podling
>> and have all the standard disclaimers. At graduation, they get the
>> apache.org site and a few redirects are put in place. Releases should
>> also have all the same caveats, warnings, and disclaimers.
>
> We could do that now, except that people have previously disliked the idea
> of $podling.apache.org being provided prior to graduation, for either e-mail
> or web site addresses.  If the consensus is to change that, fine.

I'm not asking for consensus. I'm proposing a whole new approach. And
this particular approach minimizes the "external effects" of
graduation: no mailing list renames, no subversion moves, no reporting
moves, etc.

>> Graduation could simply be a TLP deciding to add the rest of the
>> committers to its PMC and asking infrastructure to create the website,
>> etc. Or it could require a Board resolution which also mass-adds PMC
>> members. It's kind of unclear how much oversight the Board should have
>> on the graduation (note that the (pseudo) TLP will be filing reports
>> just like any other TLP, so the Board sees its progress).
>
> Please clarify.  Wouldn't the Board have to establish this TLP
> pre-Incubation,

Yes. Thus, my point that the Board is going to have to weigh in on
this topic at some point. But it needs some rounds of support and
beat-downs here on general@ before it is in a reasonable proposal
state for the Board. We also need some podlings who would like to
volunteer for this new approach, for the Board to consider.

> what *are* the graduation metrics, and who votes on
> graduation?

Dunno. I raised that in my original email.

I suspect that the metrics would be defined by the Incubator:
basically the checklist of considerations already present.

Regarding the vote: as I mentioned: the PMC comprised of the ASF
Members. It is possible that the PMC might add some non-Members over
time (like a regular PMC can and does), but I'm not very supportive of
this for projects in a *podling* state. I'd rather all those people
are added to the PMC at graduation time. There could be two ways to
graduate:

1) the PMC self-graduates
2) the PMC proposes graduation to the Board

I prefer the latter, as a final checkup/signoff to the process. The
PMC would need to arrive with $materials demonstrating satisfactory
completion of all incubation requirements.

Note: if *all* podlings move to this process, then the Incubator would
reduce to docs rather than oversight; which could imply a merge into
ComDev. But as I mentioned: I'm not sure the Members requirement is a
bar that most podlings can reach, so the Incubator is not going
anywhere, any time soon.

>> Restrictions like those on websites or releases could be relaxed. It
>> was a fair question to ask, "why keep those in place? what are we
>> trying to protect?"
>
> Why relax them uniquely for such projects?  And presumably we are protecting

Dunno. The question was raised, and it is a good question for
discussion. What *are* we attempting to protect by limiting releases
from podlings? Does that hold in this scenario? Are there other
modifications to the restrictions that can occur for these
TLP-podlings? etc.

A discussion points, nothing much more than that.

> the ASF brand, as well as downstream consumers who rely on our output,
> including clean licensing, etc.  But getting back to the first point, is
> there some rationale to relax them for these podlings and not for others?
> If we can justify them for some, should we re-examine them in general?

Yup, good questions all. It was a fair point raised on IRC that I'm
bringing here.

>> Using this model decentralizes the process
>
> So does having 3+ PMC Members today.

The IPMC is anything but decentralized. And empirical evidence shows
it to peanut-gallery-ism.

>> removes vocal minorities
>
> True.  The flipside is that it also removes additional oversight.  Remember
> that the Board created the Incubator because of problems with existing
> projects trying incubation on their own.  But we have learned a lot since
> then.

Yups. The Incubator has provided a lot of focus on what we need, what
kinds of problems arise, and what we don't need.

I maintain that "additional oversight" is not required given the
composition of these TLPs membership (all ASF Members). So there is no
real loss in this proposed construct. Just a high bar of involvement
to *get* there.

>> allows for better tuning of a PMC process to its community, and breaks
>> down the Incubator umbrella project.
>
> Possibly so, which would be good things.

Yup. Reference Justin's point about the Subversion PMC not recognizing
their own self-governance. Their initial introduction to the ASF put
them at the mercy of an invisible and nebulous group called "the
Incubator Project Management Committee". If the initial intro was a
self-governing PMC, then I think we wouldn't have the same kinds of
(admittedly minor) problems with queries about how to get certain
things done, or if they were allowed.

>> Finding 3+ Members to be on these mini/pseudo TLPs would be quite
>> difficult. I don't think this kind of process would be available or
>> workable to *all* podlings. But for projects with active Member
>> support, this could be a valid approach
>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very well in
> specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an experiment,
> if the Board buys into it.  Do we have any such projects pending or already
> in the Incubator?

I suspect the OODT guys might want to try this (it has four ASF
Members as Mentors who could comprise the PMC). Subversion would have
done this, based on my own thoughts/experiences and knowledge of what
the ASF needs/wants.

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:31, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
>> Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
>>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> > Using  this model decentralizes the process
>>
>> So does having 3+ PMC Members  today.
>
> To me this is a common flaw in both how the IPMC operates today and how
> Greg's proposal relies on 3 Members to get anything accomplished.  If
> you've been paying attention to what actually happens in this PMC over
> time,  you can't possibly have missed all the begging for votes that
> goes on.
>
> Reliance on 3 overworked people who are typically not podling committers
> to always be there when the project needs them is both unrealistic and
> doesn't scale.  We've been doing it for years, inflicting massive
> pain on the podlings whenever they release or want new committers,
> and it sucks.  That's what my experiment aims to fix.

I hear you, and I think that *if* you have 3+ *active* ASF Members,
then my approach will dramatically improve the process. Also, those
Members in the hot seat are going to be more active because they
*know* they're on the hook. There is nobody to "pass the buck" to.
They are part of the reports to the Board ("One of our PMC Members,
John Doe, has been absent."). If a project has the support, then this
gets the "second-guessing" of the IPMC and the second-level of
unnecessary "oversight" out of the way. It directly introduces the
project to its future place within the organization.

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 17 Aug 2010, at 03:31, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
> 
>> From: Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
>> Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
>> 
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>> 
>>> Using  this model decentralizes the process
>> 
>> So does having 3+ PMC Members  today.
> 
> To me this is a common flaw in both how the IPMC operates today and how
> Greg's proposal relies on 3 Members to get anything accomplished.  If
> you've been paying attention to what actually happens in this PMC over
> time,  you can't possibly have missed all the begging for votes that
> goes on.
> 
> Reliance on 3 overworked people who are typically not podling committers
> to always be there when the project needs them is both unrealistic and
> doesn't scale.  We've been doing it for years, inflicting massive
> pain on the podlings whenever they release or want new committers,
> and it sucks.  That's what my experiment aims to fix.

I believe that not having three mentors interested enough to provide oversight on key issues indicates the project is not as valid as we might think. 

There is a reverse side of the too much oversight coin. People sometimes vote +1 without providing the checks. 

That being said this solution is not one that s perfect.

Ross



> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

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

----- Original Message ----

> From: Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
> Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
> 
> Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> > Using  this model decentralizes the process
> 
> So does having 3+ PMC Members  today.

To me this is a common flaw in both how the IPMC operates today and how
Greg's proposal relies on 3 Members to get anything accomplished.  If
you've been paying attention to what actually happens in this PMC over
time,  you can't possibly have missed all the begging for votes that
goes on.

Reliance on 3 overworked people who are typically not podling committers
to always be there when the project needs them is both unrealistic and
doesn't scale.  We've been doing it for years, inflicting massive
pain on the podlings whenever they release or want new committers,
and it sucks.  That's what my experiment aims to fix.


      

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

Re: Radical revamp

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:07, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 17/08/2010 03:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very well
>> in
>> specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an
>> experiment,
>> if the Board buys into it.  Do we have any such projects pending or
>> already
>> in the Incubator?
>
> I'd be up for trying this, or whatever the board and IPMC approve, with the
> project I mentioned in the other thread. Problem there is that we don't know
> how long the legal stuff will be "in progress" or that the proposal will
> even be accepted.
>
> Anything from a couple of weeks to a few months would be my guess at this
> point.

This raises some interesting points to refine my blue-sky proposal.

First, the IPMC wouldn't be approving the project's incubation. It
would be the Board setting up the TLP to hold the podling. I'm not
sure how many proposals a month we get at the Incubator... 2 per
month? I think the Board could handle that, but ... with all that
said, it may still want to delegate an "initial discussion/evaluation"
to the Incubator PMC first to weed out noise and refine the proposal.
Then again, given the 3+ Member bar that must be reached... there
won't be many arriving at the ASF with that kind of built-in backing.
This alternate approach will only be available to a subset, I believe.

If the stuff sits in "legal review" for a while, then no big deal. The
Board can still construct an (empty) TLP that will manage the receipt
and review of the software grant. If the originators bail out, then
the TLP just gets shut down. I certainly don't see a big issue here.

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Radical revamp

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 17 Aug 2010, at 03:29, "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> wrote:

> Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very
> well in
>>> specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an
> experiment,
>>> if the Board buys into it.  Do we have any such projects pending or
> already
>>> in the Incubator?
> 
>> I'd be up for trying this, or whatever the board and IPMC approve, with
>> the project I mentioned in the other thread.
> 
> You also wrote:
> 
> "Unlike Subversion there are no pre-existing members on the commit list
> and thus noone to shelter the project team from the peanut gallery here
> in general@."

I didn't say there wouldn't be 3+ member mentors though. 

> 
Ross

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

RE: Radical revamp

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Ross Gardler wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very
well in
> > specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an
experiment,
> > if the Board buys into it.  Do we have any such projects pending or
already
> > in the Incubator?

> I'd be up for trying this, or whatever the board and IPMC approve, with
> the project I mentioned in the other thread.

You also wrote:

"Unlike Subversion there are no pre-existing members on the commit list
and thus noone to shelter the project team from the peanut gallery here
in general@."

We need to deal with the negative aspects of the peanut gallery issue, but
we also need to provide oversight and positive, beneficial, guidance.  As
you say, unlike Subversion, this project doesn't have any existing ASF
folks, which means that it likely needs more community work.

In addition to Greg's structural partitioning, perhaps we need to work on
Incubation Etiquette, and get people to voluntarily stop doing drive-bys?

	--- Noel



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

Re: Radical revamp

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 17/08/2010 03:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very well in
> specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an experiment,
> if the Board buys into it.  Do we have any such projects pending or already
> in the Incubator?

I'd be up for trying this, or whatever the board and IPMC approve, with 
the project I mentioned in the other thread. Problem there is that we 
don't know how long the legal stuff will be "in progress" or that the 
proposal will even be accepted.

Anything from a couple of weeks to a few months would be my guess at 
this point.

Ross

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

RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Greg Stein wrote:

> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > I view this as potentially the crux of the problem - people who aren't
> > stakeholders in the community shouldn't have a say.  Right now, they
> > feel they do.  So, if we want to mandate at least 3 mentors - fine,
> > but that must come at the cost of telling the rest of the IPMC to go
> > away - unless they actively contribute to the community and earn
> > merit...of course.

> Consider this:

> Make the podling a TLP comprised of *only* ASF Members, with at least
> *three* minimum (preferably more, to deal with idle times). The
> podling committers are invited onto the private@$podling.apache.org
> mailing list, but have non-binding votes. They are there for private
> discussion, to offer non-binding votes on committers, and to "see" how
> a private mailing is used and how it is NOT used.

How does that differ from the current system (given the assumption of 3+ PMC
Members), except that it precludes potential oversight from others -- the
flipside of "solves the peanut gallery problem" that apparently plagued
Subversion?

> Since you have (at least) three people on the PMC, you can accomplish
> all necessary business: releases, adding accounts, and deciding to ask
> the Board for your "graduation".

Yes.  You can do that today, too, with 3+ PMC Members.

> The mailing lists can be in the "right place", but can have footers
> attached noting the "incubation" status. The $podling.apache.org
> website "should" redirect to (say) incubator.apache.org/projects/$podling
> and have all the standard disclaimers. At graduation, they get the
> apache.org site and a few redirects are put in place. Releases should
> also have all the same caveats, warnings, and disclaimers.

We could do that now, except that people have previously disliked the idea
of $podling.apache.org being provided prior to graduation, for either e-mail
or web site addresses.  If the consensus is to change that, fine.

> Graduation could simply be a TLP deciding to add the rest of the
> committers to its PMC and asking infrastructure to create the website,
> etc. Or it could require a Board resolution which also mass-adds PMC
> members. It's kind of unclear how much oversight the Board should have
> on the graduation (note that the (pseudo) TLP will be filing reports
> just like any other TLP, so the Board sees its progress).

Please clarify.  Wouldn't the Board have to establish this TLP
pre-Incubation, what *are* the graduation metrics, and who votes on
graduation?

> Restrictions like those on websites or releases could be relaxed. It
> was a fair question to ask, "why keep those in place? what are we
> trying to protect?"

Why relax them uniquely for such projects?  And presumably we are protecting
the ASF brand, as well as downstream consumers who rely on our output,
including clean licensing, etc.  But getting back to the first point, is
there some rationale to relax them for these podlings and not for others?
If we can justify them for some, should we re-examine them in general?

> Using this model decentralizes the process

So does having 3+ PMC Members today.

> removes vocal minorities

True.  The flipside is that it also removes additional oversight.  Remember
that the Board created the Incubator because of problems with existing
projects trying incubation on their own.  But we have learned a lot since
then.

> allows for better tuning of a PMC process to its community, and breaks
> down the Incubator umbrella project.

Possibly so, which would be good things.

> Finding 3+ Members to be on these mini/pseudo TLPs would be quite
> difficult. I don't think this kind of process would be available or
> workable to *all* podlings. But for projects with active Member
> support, this could be a valid approach

> Thoughts?

I think that it is a very interesting proposal, that could work very well in
specific circumstances, and I'd be willing to see it tried as an experiment,
if the Board buys into it.  Do we have any such projects pending or already
in the Incubator?

	--- Noel



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