incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <>
Subject Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:07:50 GMT
The problems that you cite were already cited long before (nearly a
year) in my proposal to “blow the whole thing up” as you state:

And we can keep spinning around the target, growing the “IPMC”,
and trying to keep whatever “it” is together, but you will find
like I have stated ad naseum that:

1. the documentation on *what* to do for incoming projects is
already there and in good shape. Nothing prevents folks from
continuing to work on it, even without an “IPMC”

2. the process on *what* to do for incoming projects is already
there and in good shape. Nothing prevents folks from continuing
to work on it, even without an “IPMC”

3. the main issue that keeps arising, related to mentoring, will keep
arising if we keep growing this ethereal presence that’s the
“IPMC”, instead of simply making projects under the review of
the board monthly, quarterly, etc. The board doesn’t go AWOL.
The board can’t b/c the checks and balances are in place to
keep them around: the membership; the foundation; the reviewing
process and the way the foundation has existed since even *before*
the Incubator. And it’s within the board’s charter to be in this
reviewing phase/entity that is really needed and that continues to
appear and disappear within the IPMC.

In addition all of those new great folks we are now unlike before
adding to the IPMC can simply be part of e.g., ComDev, as folks
who “get” the foundation, or simply be strong ASF members, etc.,
who can hang around on the incoming projects. An incoming project
doesn’t have a person with experience reviewing Apache releases
on the incoming committee? Let that be discussed and caught, and
then adapted on the incoming proposal *to the board*.

Yes there was a time that the Incubator didn’t exist, and *gasp*
the foundation still ran fine.

It seems to me there are always a set of folks that think the
Incubator PMC needs to exist in order for the documentation,
the process, and the *care* from the people who care about the
things related to release management; legal help; community help,
etc., to exist. To me, that’s ridiculous. That stuff will still
exist. In fact, it can even exist in a concrete entity - have it
be the ComDev PMC as I originally suggested in my proposal to,
*gasp*, “blow the whole thing up”.

And finally, I guess for those folks who think that PMCs should
always be around, we should probably still have Jakarta, and other
PMCs - heck let’s never have PMCs go away - I mean, we still have
Java projects, right?


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
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Bertrand Delacretaz <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 1:09 AM
To: Incubator General <>
Subject: Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off

>On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <>
>> ...It would be sad if this Incubator Community disappears in the
>> move of incubating project to be reporting directly to the ASF Board...
>With my board member hat on, you can count on a strong -1 from me on
>that suggestion. I suspect I'm not the only board member with that
>opinion, so if people actually think of making this happen it might be
>worth polling the board first to avoid wasting time discussing that
>Once again, IMO focusing on actual concrete problems like we started
>listing at would
>be much more productive than blowing the whole thing up in the hope
>that it will somewhat re-materialize in a better form.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message