incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project
Date Sat, 15 Jun 2013 06:58:16 GMT
That first sentence still doesn't parse, sorry ...

I should have said I don't like the idea of the board taking
responsibility. I have no problem with it receiving reports directly.

Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 07:55, "Ross Gardler" <> wrote:

> I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports
> for podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting
> that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of cases.
> I'll expand on that in Chris' thread.
> I'll note that in this thread I answered the question of who Stratos
> should report to with the board, but I'll also note I don't expect the
> board to provide mentoring. That is a key difference between what I am
> proposing for pTLP and the original deconstruction proposal.
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, "Greg Stein" <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler
>> <> wrote:
>> >...
>> > Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea.
>> I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting.
>> Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here...
>> The Incubator gathers reports from all of its podlings. It reviews
>> them, discusses some aspects with those podlings, and then it files a
>> report with the ASF Board. Three paragraphs stating, "Hey. No issues.
>> Everything is going great. Community is good. Legal is good. kthxbai."
>> Would that fly with the ASF Board?
>> Not a chance. The simple fact is that the Board *does* want to see
>> reports from podlings. Those podlings will (hopefully) become part of
>> the Foundation one day. The Board is *keenly* interested in what is
>> going on, and how those podlings are doing.
>> If you suggest a model of a total black box. Where *no* podling
>> information escapes from the Incubator to the Board. And then one
>> day... *poof!!* ... a graduation resolution appears before the Board.
>> Do you honestly think the Board would just sign off on that? Again:
>> not a chance.
>> What this really means is: the Board wants to review podlings'
>> progress and operations. I don't see how it can be argued any other
>> way. So if that is true, then why does the IPMC need to be a middle
>> man? Why not provide those reports from the podling directly to the
>> Board? And why not get the podling directly engaged with the actual
>> operation of the Foundation? About how to report to the Board? About
>> shepherds, watching for commentary in the agenda, about committing to
>> that agenda!, and about paying attention to board@ and its operations.
>> If we want to teach new communities about how the ASF works, then why
>> the artificial operation of the Incubator? Why not place them directly
>> in contact with the *real* ASF?
>> By all measures, Apache Subversion would have been a pTLP when it
>> arrived at the Incubator. But we integrated very well into the ASF
>> because there were Members, Directors, and other long-term Apache
>> people who could answer "huh? what is a PMC Member? how does that map
>> to our 'full committer' status? what are these reports?" ... and more.
>> The close attention, and the direct integration with the Foundation,
>> worked as well as you could expect. The Incubator did not provide much
>> value, beyond what the extent Members were already providing (recall
>> that we easily had a half-dozen at the time; I don't know the count
>> offhand, but it was well past any normal podling).
>> The Incubator may not provide value to certain projects that reach the
>> pTLP bar (again: some thumbs-up definition of that is needed!), but it
>> is *very* much required for projects/communities that are not as
>> familiar with how we like to do things here.
>> In this concrete case of Stratos, I personally (and as a voting
>> Director) have every confidence in trying the pTLP approach. I
>> outlined some areas that I believe the Board needs before accepting a
>> pTLP, and so I'm looking forward to this experiment. I think it will
>> turn out well. I do think we may be setting up some communities for
>> anger, when the Board chooses to *not* grant pTLP status and refers
>> the community to the Incubator. I really don't have a good answer
>> there, especially around the future/obvious direction of "pTLP is only
>> for the Old Boys Club and other insiders". Sigh. Can't be helped, I
>> think.
>> Anyhow. To the original point: pTLP reporting to the Board is
>> practically speaking a no-brainer. Podlings generally report direct to
>> the Board today, minus some intermediary stuff.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message