incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: Incubator report sign-off
Date Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:45:33 GMT
Assuming that the project "VP" is someone personally invested in the project I have no real
problem with the core of this proposal. If they are not personally invested, if they are instead
a semi-random person from the IPMC then I do not see how this will address the real problem
(which is *not* having people tick a box on a report).

I do question the need to dissolve the IPMC, but we've been over that before and at this point
is probably an unnecessary distraction from the important topic of ensuring mentors have a
vested interest in the project.

Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: Mattmann, Chris A (3980) [] 
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off

And how could the below proposal return without me passing along

my comment regarding it - if we’re going to emulate the board and TLPs, etc., why emulate
it when we could cut through the middle man and simply rely on the board to do so? I guess
to protect the board from an influx of “incubating” projects (+30-40 at this point in
time?) I myself as a board member would welcome this.

What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the IPMC/Incubator/etc.,
is to return to the notion of pTLPs which were proposed earlier which I would most wholeheartedly


1. Incubation yes, Incubator no
  a. (all Incubator documentation, active folks, etc., become part of the pool of [incoming
project VP])
  b. IPMC is dissolved
  c. We create a new “Incubation PMC” that includes most active members of Incubator currently
(those who are good at reviewing releases; watching projects,

2. All incoming projects are proposed directly as pTLPs (provisional
  - provisional part is defined as:
   a. 3 members of new Incubation PMC from #1c assigned as PMC and potentially VP of incoming
   b. PMC += all incoming folks from proposal
   c. board VOTEs to approve incoming projects
   d. project retirement happens same as it currently does, with Attic support 

To me this would solve the problem of AWOL or mentors who don’t sign off.
Mentoring happens via new Incubation PMC who are assigned to the PMCs of incoming pTLPs. Project
VP is either one of those Incubation PMC members, or via Ross’s suggestion below, the most
active person or “Champion” of the incoming project. The health of these projects are
monitored by the Incubation PMC and reported on monthly directly to the board instead of hidden
inside the Incubator report each month, without sign off. All of the other problems would
seem to go away too IMO.

My 2c.


-----Original Message-----
From: "Ross Gardler   (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Friday, December 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: RE: Incubator report sign-off

>What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the 
>project. That is contributing code, voting on releases and generally 
>engaging with the community, they would be a better mentor since they 
>have a vested interest in the project itself. Sure, we might reduce the 
>number of projects coming into the foundation but (IMHO) that is not a 
>problem. Our goal as a foundation is not to be large, it is to be high 
>Maybe we should simply scrap the idea of "mentors" and change the role 
>of the "champion" to one of an initial committer who will help build an 
>Apache project as it incubates and into being a TLP.
>We could scrap the role of shepherd and change the role of mentors. A 
>team of 9 mentors would meet monthly to review *all* podlings reports 
>(as submitted by the champion). Their responsibility is not to engage 
>with the projects but to review the reports crafted by the champion. 
>Any follow up actions would be taken by a single mentor and podlings 
>(especially the champion) are expected to address the issues raised.
>If a champion's priorities change during the course of incubation then 
>the project must find another champion (potentially from within their 
>ranks) who is sufficiently qualified and committed to take on the 
>responsibility. The important thing is that the Champion is personally 
>invested in seeing the podling succeed and acts as a true mentor (as 
>opposed to someone with a title and an entry on a web page). The 
>champion is still answerable to the podling community. Where conflict 
>arises within the community they can call upon the IPMC mentoring team 
>to ask for independent guidance.
>This model is almost identical to the way the board and TLPs work 
>(where Champions are roughly equivalent to PMC Chairs and mentors (nee
>shepherds) are roughly equivalent to Directors and he monthly meeting 
>is roughly equivalent to the monthly board meeting to review TLP reports).
>I've designed it this way (and proposed the same solution before) 
>because it is proven to work for TLPs and we have tooling to assist 
>with the process.
>I look forward to the PMC tearing this strawman proposal apart and 
>importantly) suggesting alternatives and/or tweaks of value. We've been 
>skirting this issue for far too long. Things have improved (thanks to 
>all who have worked hard on this), but we have not yet solved the problem.
>Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
>A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf Of 
>Roman Shaposhnik
>Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 10:11 AM
>Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>Hi Rich!
>Thanks for raising this point and giving us a bit more of a forcing 
>function to tackle an old problem: accountability for mentors.
>On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
>> I certainly don't expect that every mentor has their full attention 
>> on a podling every month, but I do expect that a podling that cares 
>> about its incubation will seek out that mentor sign-off, and that the 
>> mentors who have committed to help a podling into the family will 
>> have a few moments every few months to look in and approve a report.
>I've been thinking about this for quite some time (and trying to seek a 
>solution by various means) and it seems to be that we have to start 
>from a very basic expectation setting.
>First of all, *my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project 
>are more of redundancy or HA consideration. IOW, my expectation that a 
>project needs to have at least one active mentor at all times, but it 
>doesn't have to be the same person. Thus, I expect at least a signle 
>sign-off on the report and I don't mind if it ends up being a single 
>one too much.
>Second biggest expectation that I have is that mentors are extension of 
>the IPMC, not part of the poddling. They are akin to professors or 
>faculty members -- they are not part of the student body. As such we, 
>as IPMC are accountable to make sure that mentors perform their duties. 
>My expectation is that it is as unfair to ask poddling to actively 
>pursue mentors who are missing in action as it would be unfair to ask 
>students to hire detectives to hunt down professors who don't show up for class.
>What is fair, is to provide poddlings with a semi-format feedback 
>channel for IPMC to monitor things like mentors MIA.
>I would like to pause here and ask everybody to chime in with what they 
>thing are the right expectations on the above two points.
>> But I wonder if we might, as the Board does, reject reports that have  
>>no sign-off, and force projects to report again the following month,  
>>in an attempt to require them to engage with their mentor(s) a little 
>As was pointed by John, we're already rejecting reports with no mentor 
>sign-off. Before we potentially take it one step further I'd like to 
>get clarity on the expectations first (and then I can volunteer to 
>document that as well!).
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message