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 17:48:16 GMT
Hi Bertrand,

-----Original Message-----
From: Bertrand Delacretaz <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM
To: Incubator General <>
Subject: Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off

>Hi Chris,
>On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
><> wrote:
>> ... ...
>Thanks for this, this looks like a good definition of "the experiment".

Thanks. This has been in existence FYI for many years, so please excuse
my skepticism this is the first time folks have seen it.

>> ...1. the documentation on *what* to do for incoming projects is
>> already there and in good shape....
>I disagree, to me needs a lot of work -
>it is way too verbose in many places for example, and mixes up best
>practices with policy. I don't see how shifting the responsibility to
>comdev would help.

Great, so like software, it’s a living, breathing thing. Is it perfect,
no? Is it “releasable” and has it been “delivered”? Yes? Does it need
a 3.0? A 4.0? Sure. It will get it. However it’s good enough for incoming
projects, along with mentors and people on those projects who “get” Apache
to use, cite, and interpret.

>> ...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”...
>Ok but define "folks".
>Currently it's the active members of the IPMC, and IIUC your plan is
>to move this responsibility to the board, which is busy enough IMO.

Nope. My plan is to move the responsibility to a variety of committees
and people, doing away with the meta committee that is the IPMC. Please
review the specific table I’ve listed at the bottom of the proposal.

>> ...Yes there was a time that the Incubator didn’t exist, and *gasp*
>> the foundation still ran fine....
>We didn't have 30-50 podlings and about 200 TLPs at the time.
>Some easy podlings need very little work, while troublesome ones might
>need lots of attention and time.

What’s new? The board regularly reviews ~150 TLPs - and what’s funnier -
is that the board is also *already* responsible for reviewing those
200 TLPs - the board is responsible for reviewing the IPMC report which
includes all of those “sub/meta/etc.” reports from the podlings. Sure,
you can argue that the IPMC is responsible for “vetting” that, but
I again cite that vetting is what keeps up

>> ...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...
>Well, someone needs to do the work of maintaining
> for example.
>Moving that responsibility to the board sounds like a huge waste of
>those people's time - the board is all about delegation and that's a
>good thing.

Please read the table at the bottom of the wiki page.

>> ...And finally, I guess for those folks who think that PMCs should
>> always be around...
>Who are those folks exactly?
>Not me - I think the IPMC should stay around, that's it. Generalizing
>this into and "old farts never change their minds" discussion is not

And what’s also not useful is acting like a proposal that’s existed for
years is something new - it’s been discussed - a simple Google search
yielded hundreds of emails no the topic.

>I'm not against an experiment with 1-2 podlings based on
> if
>people want that but I'm very skeptical of that as a general way of
>managing incoming projects. If those 1-2 podlings happen to be "easy"
>ones that will work of course, but with troublesome podlings that
>sounds to me like a huge waste of the board's energy.

It’s not just the board - again please see the table I’ve listed
at the bottom of the wiki. What my proposal does is remove the thinly
veiled “IPMC” as the “catch all” which in fact doesn’t catch all. On
its 150+ person committee - I supposed there are < 20 active people
who keep showing up. I have statistics to prove it (see my active
mentors tool I’ve shown) - I have experience having mentored many
podlings to prove it; and the mailing threads prove it. So, promote
those 20 people to ComDev PMC, promote them to ASF members, promote
them however, my guess is that they *care* about the foundation; we
want these people helping new projects, and they will continue to
help those new projects - along with the board - along with everyone


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
View raw message