incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Brockmeier <>
Subject Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2015 16:12:09 GMT
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 03:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier <> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >> I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but
> >> it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of
> >> a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the
> >> status quo around IPMC an make it more board like?
> >>
> >> Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually
> >> make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess
> >> I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross'
> >> point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
> >>
> >> But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering
> >> PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
> >
> > I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for the
> > idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor.
> Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint)
> but and extremely fair observation.
> As far as I'm concerned the issue of R&Rs of IPMC is in a state of a
> stalemate right now. We clearly have a "everything's fine lets just
> add more policy" constituency vs. "IPMC should be small and more
> board like" crowd.

If I had to identify one problem that the IPMC/Incubator suffers from at
the moment it would not be a need for a "small and more board like"
structure. The biggest problem (and perhaps I view it this way because
I'm suffering from it / am part of the problem) is a lack of time /
attention from mentors. I'm really not sure that the proposal here
solves that in any meaningful way. 
> The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation
> is growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The
> bad news is that because of the current mentality I don't see the types
> of unfortunate threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime
> soon.

What about the Ignite thread was "unfortunate"? That it was a bit heated
at times, or just the fact that there was disagreement? 

I fear that there's too much bias towards +1'ing things even when folks
have legitimate concerns. 

> This is that proverbial "political overhead" that a lot of folks are
> accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is
> grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very
> true at IPMC level today.

A lot of companies seem to view any friction (e.g. "actually complying
with policies that put community over code") as "political overhead"
that makes joining the foundation undesirable.  


Joe Brockmeier
Twitter: @jzb

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

View raw message