From general-return-41362-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Jun 13 13:13:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 20B8E10E5E for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 61979 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2013 13:12:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 61743 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2013 13:12:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 61729 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2013 13:12:55 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:12:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of list@toolazydogs.com does not designate 209.85.192.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.175] (HELO mail-pd0-f175.google.com) (209.85.192.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:12:51 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 4so11296307pdd.20 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:12:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=HQmZRGHVm87CYlaC1oYfraJcBw9UJ7d/7N2K5GlWG0E=; b=YMQMJCVkoCqTXV9jGjNiDMNjr8LBDyX84m4JsVDR9j8AWAB3r28Ow4LtacLB1FPWIW 9EVmt6FgAxmeO65CKXYSgB3XSSumx9qjEODZMFr1ZMMV4JVWCtijS3kmy6W0zjI+M9uj 4v4EqfqG2g+RRCK/b3k7DyjcHX9WSYxkL2Mc4dbwKv/zLDE8QPJyRfO9HgIXACZeg2zY hiLANE5wB1n0vNgEglItKLevgccTQP9GD87K7qQnw0XSamI5aW8T3ogg9lzQS+vg4eI/ EuYM2qSTF+1K6+3Wd5j8sSeevVhvqOBk4kdXE5rqGYbmn21PM0Cjh4Ar27yo5zWgsHdU R0Lg== X-Received: by 10.68.216.161 with SMTP id or1mr737239pbc.147.1371129150301; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.19] (c-76-103-244-129.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [76.103.244.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p2sm29304552pag.22.2013.06.13.06.12.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accept Stratos as an Apache Incubation Project From: Alan Cabrera In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:12:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <55B901A1-853A-400B-8596-7EBED64A8BC0@toolazydogs.com> To: general@incubator.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkXrLQb3irN00OMozRFMyj+zj2Rl/UmDwYIE5SvN2yC3GntU0W3cB8Nu6Ln25iE1QOAd2lV X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Ross Gardler = wrote: > On 13 June 2013 04:56, Alan Cabrera wrote: >>=20 >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Ross Gardler = wrote: >>=20 >>> So here's a thought... >=20 > ... >=20 >>> I would therefore like to propose that we use Apache Stratos as a = test >>> case for the "probationary TLP" idea. I've already talked to Chris >>> (who is driving the deconstruct the IPMC case) and Ant (who is less >>> keen on dismantling the IPMC but wants to see how a probationary TLP >>> model will play out). Both have agreed to help with this experiment = if >>> the IPMC and the Board wish it to proceed. I have not, however, >>> discussed it with all the initial comitters or even mentors - I'm >>> expecting them to speak up now. >=20 > ... >=20 >>> So, what do you think? >>=20 >> I don't see the need to force Stratos through the Incubator given the = current proposed membership. Some points: >> Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the = board? I think it should be the IPMC. >=20 > I think we should come up with a concrete plan then go to the board. > If the board is OK with taking it on then it should be board as this > will be closer to Chris' defined end goal. >=20 > In either case I undertake, as I noted in my original mail, to be the > one that steps up to fix things if it all goes wrong. That's true > whether it is IPMC or Board. I guess the details of how this governance will work, what are the = roles, and who will fill them, will need to be ironed out. >> What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins? >=20 > That needs to be defined. Given the fact the next board meeting is > only a week away I suggest we first make this a podling to allow us to > start the project here at the ASF. We can then work with the various > committees to work out what the right set-up process is (i.e. don't > set up as a podling, set up as a pTLP). We can then shoot for > submitting a board resolution next month. >=20 > I have already made it clear to the proposers of the project that > taking this route will result in a slightly longer set-up period > (because of the need to define new policies along the way). They are > comfortable trading slower set-up for potentially faster graduation. It would probably be good to be clear on what are the exact = characteristics that make this podling pTLP worthy for the future. For = example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks. >> What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in = good graces? >=20 > Exactly the same as any other TLP. >=20 >> What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces? >=20 > Exactly the same as any other TLP. The board says "fix it". If it > isn't fixed the board kicks out the problem element(s) and invites > remaining PMC to "fix it". If that failes the pTLP is sent packing. >=20 >> What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes? >=20 > Same as graduation from the Incubator (a release, demonstration of a > healthy community, approval of the board) Nice and simple. >> Fleshing out these and, I'm sure, others' concerns on a wiki, as Joe = pointed out, would be a great idea. >=20 > Yes, but please note my proposal to do this as a standard podling > rather than in this discussion phase. I don't think we need everything > in a row before the team can get to work. >=20 > If it should prove impossible to find a sensible process then we can > simply leave the project as a standard podling. Makes sense. > So to recap the proposed timeline: >=20 > - IPMC votes on accepting the podling with the intention of moving it = to a pTLP > - mentors (with Chris' assistance) guide project committers in working > with the various committees to define incubation/probation process > - submit a board resolution in July to create the pTLP > - if project is not ready to do so this can be delayed until August > - If the board are unhappy with the project then I am called in to > clear up the mess I made > - If the board are happy with progress submit a resolution to become a > TLP in <12 months (target 6 months) +1 Though I wouldn't put a date on TLP; keep things simple. We don't for = podlings and since the pTLP will be filled with trustworthy ASF members = we can trust they will do the right thing. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org