incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Douglas <>
Subject Re: Incubator report sign-off
Date Fri, 19 Dec 2014 20:03:59 GMT
+1 for Chris's proposal.

Without diminishing the creativity applied to solving problems with
the incubator, perhaps the better solution is to trade those problems
for tractable ones. -C

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
<> wrote:
> 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 support.
> 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,
> etc.)
> 2. All incoming projects are proposed directly as pTLPs (provisional
> TLPs)
>   - provisional part is defined as:
>    a. 3 members of new Incubation PMC from #1c
> assigned as PMC and potentially VP of incoming project
>    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.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> -----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 own
>>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
>>I look forward to the PMC tearing this strawman proposal apart and (most
>>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:

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

View raw message