incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: February report review
Date Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:52:23 GMT

> From: Sam Ruby <>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:37 PM
>Subject: Re: February report review
>On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Jukka Zitting <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The podling reports this month [1] seem pretty good in general.
>> I spent some time unifying report formatting and fixing some minor
>> issues (like Stanbol needing an intro paragraph). I also pinged
>> NPanday and Zeta Components that have still not reported (both also
>> missed their previous report), asking them to report again next month
>> unless they already have something ready. HISE didn't report as the
>> project is just about to retire.
>> Based on the submitted reports I'd divide the projects into the
>> following three rough categories:
>> 1) Still getting started at the Incubator (7 podlings)
>>   - Any23
>>   - Bloodhound
>>   - Cordova
>>   - DeltaSpike
>>   - DeviceMap
>>   - Flex
>>   - Openmeetings
>> 2) Not yet ready to graduate, categorized by most pressing issue (12 podlings)
>>   2a) IP clearance: Amber
>>   2b) Release trouble: Clerezza, Stanbol
>>   2c) Low activity: Ambari, Nuvem, PhotArk, SIS, Wink
>>   2d) Low diversity: Airavata, Droids, VCL, Wookie
>> 3) Ready to graduate (3 podlings)
>>   - Jena
>>   - Lucene.NET
>>   - OpenNLP
>> Also, I looked at the number of mentors signing off a report. Most had
>> at least two explicit sign-offs, which is pretty good. Here's the list
>> of projects with less than that:
>> - no signoffs: Amber, OpenNLP
>> - one signoff: Any23, Ambari, Jena, Lucene.NET, Nuvem, Openmeetings,
>> PhotArk, Wink
>> I'm not yet sure how useful (or even meaningful) summaries like this
>> are. If people find this summary useful or more importantly something
>> we can act on, then we could try doing it again for future reports.
>This demonstrates active oversight.  I particularly like the asking of
>those projects that didn't report to do so next month.
>In fact, I would go further.  Freeze the wiki page, add a link, and
>submit this as the Incubator report for this month to the board.

+1. This is a much saner summary of the IPMC's activities to report
to the board than simply passing on the podling reports unprocessed.

>I don't mean this to sound like a "yes, but", but you have identified
>12 podlings that aren't new and aren't ready to graduate.  Are there
>active plans to address the top issue identified?    If there are
>plans, and there is evidence of recent progress towards resolving the
>issue, fine.  Otherwise, please identify what actions the Incubator
>PMC should be taking.  That action could be as simple as asking the
>podling to report again next month.

Well that would require more careful scrutiny of the individual reports.
SIS, one of the wayward podlings I am mentoring, is trying to kick things
into gear again, but might be worthwhile subjecting to another report next

>> [1]
>> BR,
>> Jukka Zitting
>P.S.  This may very well piss off four people, but have you thought
>about being Chair for the Incubator PMC?

LOL.  If Jukka is going to perform on this level consistently, I'd certainly
support this.  As I have said before I don't believe the *right* solution
is to dismantle the IPMC, at least not when the number one problem remains
active mentor participation.  I think Jukka's leadership here in the actual
oversight work we need to be doing monthly is the best representation of
what I'd like to see from the IPMC Chair going forward.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message