incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:01:50 GMT
Hi Ross,

On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Feb 4, 2012 3:41 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>> wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>>> Who fixes it?
>> The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the
> board,
>> or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs.
> if l the "membership" what is the channel used and who is responsible for
> ensuring that channel works?

The same channel that exists today for normal projects. The board is
elected by the membership. If the board doesn't fix the problem for the
project, and the membership is unpleased, the members elect a new
board that will fix it. Or they won't.

>>> Who is maintaining the standards with respect to IP
>>> management?
>> How much work is there maintaing them? What's left to do?
> I mean in individual projects, not in defining policy. Even in the poddling
> that I've felt would benefit from this proposal the RM has learned by his
> mistakes. Some of which were caught by IPMC review when an additional vote
> was needed.

Sure, and in my proposal it'll be caught by review of having 3 ASF members
on the project; by actually signing up strong ASF members (or "mentors")
to the project (as Benson said) who care about that stuff (release review, etc.), and by having
a VP for the project. Or by the board. Or by the legal committee. 

If you think about it, I'm simply proposing to use what's there, and to 
move more towards the existing foundation resources, than to pretend 
that the IPMC was the only place that we could get this information from.
A lot of the passionate legal folks or release review folks in the IPMC 
(ant, Sam, etc.) are also members of the legal committee, and/or lurk
there. A lot of the release passionate folks (Joe S., myself etc.) also lurk in other
places that will see releases happening (infra@, etc.). It's not putting extra
burden on them to ask them to flag what they see, or provide advice. They're
doing that already. 

> Who provides these cross-checks?

See above.

> You asked if a project couldn't muster the binding votes on a release,
> what's it doing on the incubator. This project couldn't, but it is still
> graduating. Ironically when I suggested bringing the RM into the IPMC to
> help other podlings trying to find votes Bill, who supports this proposal
> said yes, but required that the RM must refrain from voting on his own
> releases. That position seems to conflict with this proposal and I'm
> unclear what the difference is.

I can't speak for Bill, but I can say that Bill "gets" what I am saying
 (and so do quite a few others).  Bill is just keeping up with the threads 
right now, and doing a great job.

You'll note I supported giving your RM his VOTE, and in my proposal
you wouldn't have had problems mustering any binding VOTEs. You'd
have had them already like any other project management committee.

>> Arguably, legal and the Legal Committee have a hand in this, no?
>> I'm not sure it was entirely managed by the IPMC before.
> Again, I agree the IPMC has not always worked, but it has not always failed
> either.

Stop calling it a failure. I *never* called it a failure. I called it a success.
Even things that are a "success" end. 

> Are legal@ going to do reviews when necessary? If not who is?

Of course they are. They do it now for existing projects, that come 
to them and ask (Sam's famous phrase). And even before that, the ASF members who 
are on the project committee (and even the non members) need 
to do a bit of reading, and try and help out there as much as possible.
Signing up to be a PMC member on an incoming project means 
investing the time to help out in some way. The member doesn't have to be all
knowing or be the super star champion. That's why the trust is
distributed amongst the members of the PMC just like any PMC, 
is funneled through the chair of the committee, and is acted or 
reacted upon by the board, and why the board is elected by
the membership.


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

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

View raw message