incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Date Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:09:21 GMT
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, John D. Ament <> wrote:

> Roman,
> 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.

John: you can help a pTLP just as much as any other podling. Is your point
that you don't have a binding vote? That your help is tied into such a
forceful voice? ... I believe that your wisdom will be helpful, regardless
of whether your vote is binding or not.

>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 is not a concern, and is one of the reasons that myself and others are
championing the pTLP process. The above is not quite correct, and having
ASF Members and direct interaction with the Board will help communities to
understand what/how the Foundation truly operates.

Yes, we require (3) +1 votes for a *release*.

No, that requirement does not apply whatsoever to adding new PMC members,
and certainly not towards new committers (and other aspects of turning
community members into active contributors). The VP can unilaterally add
new PMC members and committers. We don't like to see that, but you're
already proposing a community in crisis; in that case, I *EXPECT* the VP to
act unilaterally to reboot the active participation. And recall: the Board
has the direct oversight and helpful aid for that project. If the VP is the
one to disappear, then the Board will notice and will ask for a
recommendation to replace.

In short, a TLP or pTLP can always recover from stasis. Unlike a podling
subject to another group for its well-being, a (p)TLP has the complete
ability to rebuild itself. The VP of the (p)TLP is an Office and is
directed towards ensuring the success and well-being of the project. That
allows for a *very* wide-ranging set of actions.

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.

As Ross noted elsewhere, this is a new/experimental process for moving
projects into the Foundation. The Incubator shall remain, and can continue
to address your concern for projects without ASF Members to advance the
pTLP style process.



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