incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:24:39 GMT
On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
>> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
>> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
>> tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
>> than 2 months.
>> A trial balloon: the board appoints Chris to run a PMC to set this up
>> and try it out -- with the intention of being a short-lived
>> phenomenon. Meanwhile, Noel or I or some other nominee continue to
>> make the best of the incubator as we have it, including the gradual
>> modifications pushed by Sam and Joe. If the board eventually decides
>> that the ipmc is entirely obviated by the membership and comdev, we'll
>> hire a bagpiper for the closing ceremony. If it turns out that a small
>> IPMC providing support and assistance to 'probationary projects' is
>> desired, we'll go on a diet.
>> I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
>> some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
>> and transition the existing clutch. While this can't avoid ending up
>> as electioneering, I don't think it a good idea to simply appoint an
>> IPMC chairman who is focussed like a laser beam on this restructuring
>> to the exclusion of making the best of what we're currently doing.
> This makes sense to me.  Podlings are an obvious granularity to try out this.
> Over a period of years we dissolved Jakarta.  We started by graduating
> Ant and Tomcat to be TLPs.  This was once a new concept.  Over time,
> less and less remained under the umbrella.
> Selecting individual podlings that seem best equipped to try out the
> new experiment would be a reasonable way to proceed.

I'm actually thinking the thru-process test might be more useful.  Take
the next two incubating projects 'accepted', put Chris and I each on one
of them with another few mentors each as usual, give them the board
resolutions to create them as "Project, Incubating" "accountable to the
policies proscribed by the VP, Incubator", and see how the process flows.
Chris and I have each incubated a few projects all the way through, so
it should be easy for us to note obstacles and roadblocks that need to
be corrected through docs and policy revisions.

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

View raw message