incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <>
Subject Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:31:52 GMT
Hi Niclas,

I’m in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don’t
agree with others that it hasn’t been well specified yet. I
think it’s easy to invent things that haven’t been
done and to overlook what has been done (more than
1 wiki page, in Incubator-ville; an in ComDev now,
thanks to Roman; 100s-1000s of emails over many years
on the subject, etc.).

Continuing to play the “bring me a rock” game will
lead to no progress.

I don’t have a ton of confidence for pTLP in the
current board. I also fully invite the membership of
the ASF to use this as a measuring stick for future
board members. Ask your board member candidates during
the next ASF member election to answer this question
before you cast you VOTE and use it to help decide.


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: Niclas Hedhman <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

>I would like to pick this thread up again...
>IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various
>views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members;
>Greg, Chris --> Would like to have "Provisional" badge, which entails
>disclaimers to alert users.
>Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with
>incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator.
>Bertrand  --> Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with.
>Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision.
>Doug --> Don't want to see more "vectors" for Board, as any future change
>to lower burden on Board will be made complex. He favor a pure TLP status
>from Board's perspective, but have no problem with voluntary labeling at
>the TLP itself.
>Jim --> Was worried about the wording ("run") that implied more work for
>Board. Greg clarified the meaning to not imply such. Jim is "mulling over"
>the pTLP concept not seeming/feeling right, and worries about "just do it,
>document later" approach.
>Ross --> Expressed hope that pTLP will reduce load on IPMC, but warn
>possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. Seems positive to
>experiments to gather data.
>At least superficially, it seems that there is no consensus at the Board
>level at this point in time. It is difficult to gauge whether a consensus
>in favor can be reached, or that this idea should be dropped.
>On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby <>
>> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only
>> to
>> > > become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be
>> > > discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who
>> votes
>> > > on a pTLP resolution.
>> >
>> > Resolution R2, paragraph 3:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Well aware, Sam. I voted on that. ... and again: it doesn't assign
>> *exclusive* management of incoming projects. It is flat out impossible
>> such. The Board can write a resolution saying that one day, and then
>> a contravening resolution the next.
>> *shrug*
>> ... what you're missing is that pTLP is not part of the Incubator.
>> against it, but it has zero bearing upon these proposals. All of that is
>> left to the Board.
>> >...
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> - New Energy for Java

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