incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Re: my pTLP view
Date Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:22:34 GMT
I can see how it could work for some new communities, but I don’t think it
will work for all.  I would imagine some potential podlings don’t have
well-established communities.  They might just be a few folks with a good
idea and looking to recruit lots of new folks for the initial committers
list.  In such a case, it sort of makes sense for there to be an option,
if enough ASF members want to be on that initial committers list not to
mentor, but to be real committers, for the board to bypass incubation and
establish a pTLP.

For Flex, we did not have an established community of developers coming in
with the code.  But I don’t know that we could have recruited enough ASF
members to be committers.  Flex was different enough to not be closely
related to any other Apache project.  Folks were interested in seeing if
Flex could be a viable Apache project, but I don’t think any existing ASF
members have actually become Flex committers.  I think I’ve processed new
accounts for each of our committers.  So would that mean that some future
Flex would just not come to Apache?

On 1/26/15, 10:09 AM, "Alan D. Cabrera" <> wrote:

>TL;DR I think this is a good idea.
>I thought long and hard about this during the weekend and I’ve changed my
>mind about this; I’ll spare you my handwringing thought processes.  Some
>things that I personally would like to see:
>- do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP
>- ComDev should be charged w/ augmenting their maturity model with
>“profiles” which can be applied to such TLPs, e.g.
>    - committers==PMC
>    - codebase going through IP clearance
>    - PMC considers TLP properly diverse
>    - PMC considers TLP properly active
>- item 2 is too strict
>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>> 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
>> to the Board, they have infrastructure like any other project (eg.
>> But they have two significant differences:
>> 1. probationary text is prominent, much like we require "incubating" to
>> 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
>> groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to
>> 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
>> 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
>> ability to review many projects. Before the Incubator, there weren't
>> many projects. The Directors didn't have a lot of experience with a lot
>> breadth. Nowadays, we review the work of *dozens* of projects every
>> If one is a pTLP instead of a regular TLP? Not a big deal. They have
>> 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
>> 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
>> Agenda to create such a pTLP, then I would be supportive. The pTLP
>> construct is independent of the Apache Incubator. Anybody is free to
>> how they want to approach it, and then ask the Board if they are
>>willing to
>> try it.
>> Cheers,
>> -g

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