incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject my pTLP view
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:42:44 GMT
Roman kicked off a query about  "next steps", with links to several wiki
pages on possibilities. The "IncubatorV2" page which describes a
"probationary TLP" is nothing like I have thought about.

In my mind, a pTLP looks *exactly* like any other PMC. They report directly
to the Board, they have infrastructure like any other project (eg.
FOO.apache.org). But they have two significant differences:

1. probationary text is prominent, much like we require "incubating" to be
prominent in various locations/messages for podlings

2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members. committers can be
chosen however the community decides. but the *project* is reviewed by
people with (hopefully/theoretically) experience with the Foundation and
its views on communities

That's it. By creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then they can
groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to the
PMC. The Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can do
whatever it wants in that regard.

The Board might not accept a pTLP resolution because it wants more
greybeards on there, to help the community. Removing the "probationary"
label, is up to the pTLP to request, and the Board to approve. It is
usually pretty obvious when a community has reached that point, if you are
talking about active ASF/PMC Members. But the Board would apply its own
level of trust.

There is a big element here, which didn't exist 12 years ago: the Board's
ability to review many projects. Before the Incubator, there weren't that
many projects. The Directors didn't have a lot of experience with a lot of
breadth. Nowadays, we review the work of *dozens* of projects every month.
If one is a pTLP instead of a regular TLP? Not a big deal. They have some
operational restrictions, but the report should be showing us a typical
Apache community.

The other aspect is IP clearance and management, which also didn't exist a
dozen years ago (and the Incubator was basically started in response to
some IP problems). We have a much better understanding there. Today, we
have the Incubator performing that, but no reason we can't have pTLPs
managing that process. We file "forms" about clearance with the Incubator,
but really: that should be filed $somehow defined by the VP of Legal
Affairs (and *that* position/process didn't exist until years after the
Incubator was established).

TLPs are a recognition of a community. We can create probationary
communities, supported by ComDev, Legal, other communities, and reviewed by
the Board.

Speaking as a Director of the ASF, if a Resolution arrived on the Board's
Agenda to create such a pTLP, then I would be supportive. The pTLP
construct is independent of the Apache Incubator. Anybody is free to define
how they want to approach it, and then ask the Board if they are willing to
try it.

Cheers,
-g

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message