incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:50:43 GMT
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
<chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Thanks Benson - I would suggest using the Incubator wiki if you
> need one (but the point about there not being a Board wiki - interesting,
> would be nice to have one).
>
> At the end of the day the resolution would look like a typical board
> resolution after Incubator graduation e.g., “Create Apache X”, so
> it would be summarized as you mention in point #3 below.

Chris,

I agree that the simplest model of (p)TLP hasn't much of a (p): it
would be a normal resolution, and we'll be off to the races. I plan,
if the Nifi group is game, to send mail to the board offering that
option, and then back off to a more complex proposal if the board
wants more (p) -- like PR restrictions, or some sort of policy on how
the initial podling group gets incorporated into the PMC.

--benson


>
> Cheers and good luck.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM
> To: "general@incubator apache. org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
>
>>I plan to:
>>
>>1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. Can't
>>expect IRB approval without it.
>>
>>2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details
>>to
>>worry over. Any suggestions about where to put it? There in no board wiki.
>>Is there?
>>
>>3. Submit a board resolution when I think there is a consensus.
>>On Dec 30, 2014 12:24 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <
>>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Marvin, I completely agree with you - to sum it up - my take on your
>>>point
>>> that Apache has a lot of information and guidelines for new podlings
>>> that is somewhat inconsistently brought down to new generations and
>>> those after them of incoming projects. Have a mentor that’s a stickler
>>> for release candidates - you will see projects come out believing that
>>> is the end-all be-all for Apache (“gah, Apache is the communist release
>>> foundation!”). Have a mentor that is a stickler for diversity on
>>>incoming
>>> projects, podlings will come out believing there is some rule that a
>>> committee can’t have a majority of contributors from a single
>>>organization
>>> (“Ahh _that_ company is taking over an _Apache_ project! Gasp!”). Have
>>> a mentor that’s a stickler for adding anyone that drops by on the
>>>mailing
>>> list that says hi (ahem..ducks) you’ll have podlings coming in and new
>>> committees believing in low barriers to committership and PMCship.
>>>
>>> Regardless the above is the ethos of Apache and by and far, it will
>>>exist,
>>> IPMC or not. There is no reason that the current f_active(IPMC) = [some
>>> # less than 20] couldn’t simply still exist either in official committee
>>> form (its own; or on the ComDev PMC), and continue to do the same thing.
>>> It’s my belief that the genetic makeup of active IPMC members includes
>>> a few mentors cut from each of the important incoming new project areas
>>> that are important to pass down - legal, release review, community and
>>> participation, etc - and that we should as best as possible try and
>>> have a set of 3 that represents some nice representative cross section
>>>of
>>> those skills for the new projects.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from:
>>>
>>> 1. Making ASF members out of anyone that’s part of that active IPMC
>>> list that’s not already a member
>>> 2. Having those ASF members vote in new board members that represent
>>> their views and ethos (including themselves as new board members)
>>> 3. Having those board members be part of checks and bounds to *care*
>>> and review these projects part of our foundation
>>>
>>> Or some subset of the above.
>>>
>>> My point being - IPMC or not - the things you cite below as important
>>> will still exist, since this foundation and its people will, hopefully
>>> for the next 50+ years.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>>> Chief Architect
>>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
>>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>>> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
>>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 8:03 AM
>>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP
>>>
>>> >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
>>> ><chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> >> The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the
>>> >> mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify
>>> >> (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc.
>>> >
>>> >I am skeptical that Apache policies will be applied evenly under such a
>>> >regime.  For example, release candidates routinely make it to the full
>>> >IPMC
>>> >vote with binary dependencies embedded in source.  Regardless of
>>>intent,
>>> >removing final review by the wider IPMC will have the effect of
>>> >liberalizing
>>> >the policy on bundled binary dependencies for those pTLPs who do not
>>> >count any
>>> >sticklers among their Mentors.
>>> >
>>> >Rather than change effective release policy for a minority through
>>> >administrative laxity, the Board should grapple with the full
>>> >implications of
>>> >changing it explicitly for everyone.  (Yes, that will turn a huge, gory
>>> >fight
>>> >considering liability, etc.)
>>> >
>>> >Atomizing the IPMC will also yield inconsistency in other areas where
>>> >there is
>>> >either confusion or honest disagreement among the Membership as to what
>>> >our
>>> >policies are, such as provenance documentation requirements for
>>> >contributions
>>> >arriving via Github, or whether PMC chairs are "special".
>>> >
>>> >Nevertheless, +1 to move forward with the "pTLP experiment" (whatever
>>>that
>>> >means).  Odds are that any given pTLP will work out OK, especially if
>>>they
>>> >land one of our better Mentors.  But when one messes up, maybe we'll
>>>get a
>>> >clarifying post-mortem with the Board in the hot seat and the Incubator
>>> >unavailable as a convenient scapegoat.
>>> >
>>> >No matter how much progress the Incubator makes, people will continue
>>>to
>>> >hate
>>> >on it because it's a teacher and front-line enforcer of contentious and
>>> >frustratingly complex Foundation policies.  I'm not sure that's a
>>>solvable
>>> >problem, because it seems that The Apache Way inherently produces
>>> >sprawling,
>>> >incoherent policy and policy documentation.
>>> >
>>> >Marvin Humphrey
>>> >
>>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message