incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
Date Thu, 01 Jan 2015 18:34:34 GMT
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> The incubator PMC does fulfill one important role, that of being a
> vettor of releases. It doesn't always do it well, but sometimes it does.
> The scenario you describe above would put that responsibility entirely
> upon the mentors.
>
> I would argue though, that it doesn't require a 100+ committee to fulfil
> that requirement. Perhaps we could ask the legal affairs committee to
> accept a responsibility for vetting first releases. Perhaps needing one
> vote for a first release, or for all releases? It would be great to
> offer such a service to non-incubating projects that produce new
> products also - that knowledge and ability shouldn't be locked into the
> incubator PMC.

There could be a much-reduced IPMC that had, as it's only function, to
be an additional gate on pTLP releases. For extra credit, it could
audit a few releases of ordinary TLPs from time to time.  We don't
have to retire the name 'IPMC' to shift the model.

There is the question of PR/disclaimer to sort out.

>
> That seems the one missing piece as yet undiscussed in the various
> "disband the incubator" discussions.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015, at 01:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>> Roman,
>>
>> Thank you for your time as the chair.  I eagerly look forward to the
>> point
>> where there is no need for the IPMC.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Wed Dec 31 2014 at 8:27:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on
>> > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial  that the
>> > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members.
>> > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period
>> > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months
>> > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something,
>> > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a
>> > rotating chair.
>> >
>> > At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last
>> > day of the year a perfect  cut-off point to start talking about
>> > transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue:
>> >
>> > At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is
>> > not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That
>> > is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody
>> > involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC
>> > gets completely dissolved. Here's why:
>> >
>> > First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris
>> > and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks
>> > the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all
>> > about: Apache project on training wheels.  Instead of teaching
>> > our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC
>> > and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board,
>> > we have IPMC.
>> >
>> > After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully
>> > convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem
>> > with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all
>> > the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient
>> > of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with
>> > responsibility.
>> >
>> > While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system
>> > is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability
>> > What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with
>> > authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the
>> > project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC
>> > of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and
>> > the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal
>> > "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status
>> > is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without
>> > the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case
>> > with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing
>> > is clearly lacking.
>> >
>> > Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC
>> > in order to fix this, one might say that something along the
>> > lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think
>> > that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility
>> > is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating
>> > project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either
>> > in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma
>> > (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to).
>> >
>> > But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility
>> > wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the
>> > way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in
>> > overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction
>> > will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as
>> > producing releases or growing the community. The scalability
>> > of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still
>> > needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover
>> > if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would
>> > all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation
>> > at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If nothing else, this real
>> > engagement gives the board a very early indicator of
>> > its own scalability issues if any. Early warning are a good
>> > thing, not something that needs to be feared.
>> >
>> > All in all, it feels like direct overseeing of Incubating projects
>> > would be a good thing for the poddlings, a good thing for
>> > the mentors, a good thing for the board and ultimately
>> > the only mature and responsible way of making sure that
>> > the project we try to embrace get the best shot of becoming
>> > ASF TLPs. At this point, I'm struggling to see any potential
>> > negative effects. In fact, if there's one thing I really would
>> > like everybody commenting on this thread to focus on it would
>> > be that: arguing for potential downsides.
>> >
>> > With that, I'd like to thank all of my IPMC colleagues for
>> > this great opportunity and wish all of you the Happiest
>> > New Year!
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Roman.
>> >
>> > ==============
>> > From: Mattmann, Chris A
>> >
>> > [...snip...]
>> > 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
>> > else.
>> > [...snip...]
>> > ===============
>> > From: Benson Margulies
>> >
>> > [...snip...]
>> > Here is where the 'Mentors in the Project' (whether directly reporting
>> > to the board or not) leaps up and looks like a great idea to me. The
>> > whole goal of incubation is to run an Apache project on training
>> > wheels. How does an Apache project run? WIth a chair and PMC members
>> > supervising it and _reporting to the board_.  The proposal, as I see
>> > it, is to tell the champion and other mentors that they, and not the
>> > entire IPMC in some nebulous fashion, are the PMC in the PPMC. By the
>> > time the podling graduates, their need to have expanded themselves to
>> > a larger group.
>> >
>> > The board may choose to keep the IPMC around to organize and support
>> > this process. The board may choose to continue to ask the IPMC to add
>> > an extra layer of supervision. But the heart of the proposal is to
>> > insist that every podling be nucleated around at least three people
>> > who have the experience to operate as a PMC and have volunteered for
>> > the responsibility.
>> > [...snip...]
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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