incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <>
Subject Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:42:17 GMT

On 2015-07-27 00:04, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Wait. I think this is overstating the "displeasure".
> I don't see anyone saying the feedback is not valuable. I see mentors being asked to
clearly state their recommendation with reference to the feedback. The thread was too long
and argumentative to draw any conclusions.
> I also see concerns that these issues are raised at the point of discussing graduation.
That is too late.
At risk of nitpicking on semantics; Discussing graduation should be 
about whether or not a project is ready to graduate, should it not? 
There should not be a moment in a podling's life, past a completed 
graduation vote, where it is "too late" to voice your concern, 
otherwise, what's the point of having a discussion if it's expected that 
everyone agrees?

As stated elsewhere, unfortunately we have situations where a lot of 
topics that should have been covered at an earlier stage suddenly comes 
up during a graduation discussion, or in the horrible cases, during a 
graduation vote. We should strive to have as few of these moments as 
possible - possibly by redesigning the incubator process a bit to 
address this - , but I don't think we neither should nor can 'outlaw' 
this. This is the 'point of no return' so to speak, and while I would 
really love for this to be a walk in the park every single time (because 
we did our homework in time), there will be cases where both mentors and 
IPMC members have missed things (for various reasons), and until we 
actually come up with a good replacement for "please take a good look at 
our podling" that actually works and engages people besides the mentors, 
this will remain the point in time where podlings are under the most 

To sum up: I think the attitude is a bit skewed here. We should not be 
negative about a final big push, we should be glad that it exists - as 
it shows people _can_ take the time to look into what's going on in 
podlings - and look into why this manages to garner extra effort from 
our volunteers and how we can encourage and incentivize them to do this 
at an earlier stage.

Maybe we need a 'half way' discussion/review, maybe we need something 
else. What we have right now does not seem to give the desired result.

I'll get some sleep, have some FOSS dreams (or the usual surreal ones 
with a hedgehog chasing a lion) and see if I can't come up with a more 
specific proposal for tomorrow :)

With regards,

> This separate thread goes in a significantly different direction and should jot be linked
to any specific discuss thread.
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: David Nalley<>
> Sent: ‎7/‎26/‎2015 12:36 PM
> To:<>
> Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
>> Empower the Mentors to run the podlings, teach the newcomers and bring it
>> to TLP.
> As a mentor of podlings, I dislike the above idea.
> Mentors get busy, they miss things, sometimes big things. Sometimes
> things that are obvious to an outsider are missed by mentors who don't
> catch it. I've certainly been guilty of missing things, and having an
> 'outside IPMC member' call attention to that has caused me to go find
> not just that problem, but other problems with a podling.
> Even on smaller issues, Justin and Sebb run circles around me in
> validating that releases comply with policy. I've voted affirmatively
> on releases that Justin or Sebb has found issues; occasionally glaring
> issues. I do not think that just because I am a mentor on $project and
> they aren't invalidates concerns they may raise. I may have additional
> insight, and be able to explain things.
> Similarly, a vote was brought to the IPMC as to whether or not to
> recommend graduation. We asked people to inspect the podling and vote,
> and for some reason seem displeased when everyone doesn't unanimously
> agree with the mentors. I am not sure whether to interpret that as
> 'non-mentor IPMC votes are discouraged', or whether 'dissenting
> opinions are discouraged'. But telling the body responsible (the IPMC)
> to leave podlings in its charge alone, particularly when prompted by a
> vote called by the podling itself hardly seems appropriate.
> --David
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message