incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 03:04:39 GMT
How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide?

Sent from my Windows Phone
From: John D. Ament<>
Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 6:56 PM
To:<>; Bertrand Delacretaz<>;
Sam Ruby<>
Cc: Apache Board<>
Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document


I don't think much is missing.  One of my concerns with all of these
proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in
how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate.  For someone like me,
I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC.

>From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three
existing Apache members.  Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation
where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional
member.  While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone
of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot
ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining.

This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed
by an existing member.  I can see this approach not helping foster external
groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly
willing to help foster that community.

I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor
projects.  So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to
seeing the results.


On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik <> wrote:

> Hi!
> since a few board members requested a detailed document
> outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this:
> action?pageId=51812862
> which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale
> is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered
> good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level
> of standard would be unfair.
> At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as
> wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request
> attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of
> a document to be available.
> Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit
> the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can
> give you karma, though).
> I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy
> in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more
> time to join ASF as a pTLP project.
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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