You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> on 2010/08/17 06:56:00 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] OODT Podling Incubator Experiment (was Re: Radical
revamp (was: an experiment))
[ 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by "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))
Posted by "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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by 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))
Posted by "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))
Posted by "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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++