incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2015 02:18:48 GMT
I wonder how much of the silence is a notion of "I don't want to be
accountable if something goes wrong in this podling."

Having the IPMC safety net means its at least the IPMC's fault if something
goes wrong.

Personally, I'd be happy if the PPMCs had more self governance.  But I
think there are also some key people on the IPMC that should be able to
lend their skills out to the broader PPMCs in case of need.


On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM Roman Shaposhnik <>

> 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?
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Ross Gardler
> <> wrote:
> > Well this explains how it got this way, it was poorly worded from the
> start...
> >
> > The first part is about incoming code (the SGA) and nothing has changed
> there.
> >
> > The second part says " SHALL formally request the Incubator PMC approve
> such a release" It does not say [VOTE] and it was never, IMHO, intended to
> be a separate vote (unless there were insufficient IPMC votes).
> >
> > Speaking personally I have always (and I know many other mentors have
> also, certainly all those that have co-mentored with me) treated a vote on
> the podling list as binding and a "request" in the form of a notification
> (giving time to object if appropriate) when three positive IPMC votes have
> been cast.
> >
> > In 2006 it said "Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform
> a release, the Podling SHALL hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list.
> At least three +1 votes are required (see the Apache Voting Process page),
> and only the PPMC member votes are binding. If the majority of all votes is
> positive, then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the
> Incubator's general list and formally request the Incubator PMC approve
> such a release."
> >
> > That's still the wording today.
> >
> > I've never been challenged on this approach (having mentored many
> podlings). It was my approach with the most recent release I was a part of,
> just last week (Ripple). The additional reviews received from the IPMC were
> useful, spotting a couple of small items, and turned up the one required +1
> (only two binding mentor votes).
> >
> > Whether this is an accurate recollection of what was discussed way back,
> or whether this is just a practice I (and others) have fallen into and not
> been challenged on I urge the IPMC to consider this approach (of course, it
> does rely on proper oversight from mentors and the IPMC, I'm comfortable
> with this approach because I never vote +1 without having done due
> diligence on the release - I trust others do the same).
> >
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Nalley []
> > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:05 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
> the Apache Incubator)
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler <
>> wrote:
> >> The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how
> things were when the incubator was created. The need for IPMC to control
> the process is another case of the IPMC over-reaching itself and in so
> doing causing problems by creating a bottleneck in the process.
> >>
> >> It used to be that it was only required to *notify* the IPMC of a
> release vote underway. Thereby giving interested IPMC members the
> opportunity to review artifacts and processes during the normal release
> cycle. IPMC members were expected to cast their votes on the PPMC list
> where such things belong.
> >>
> >
> > I'd love to see links to that - my digging didn't find it. (see below)
> >
> >> I'm not sure where this idea that the vote actually occurs on the IPMC
> list came from but it's flat wrong in my opinion (someone may dig through
> the archives and find a good reason it was changed, but my feeling is that
> it changed gradually through edits-on-edits-on-edits of the incubation
> policy).
> >>
> >> The fact is that the PPMC (with IPMC representation from the mentors)
> should be in charge of their releases, and pretty much everything else. The
> IPMC role is one of teaching the PPMC how manage itself. Mentors should do
> this through mentoring and the IPMC should ensure it is done through an
> appropriate level of oversight (not an inappropriate amount of control).
> >>
> >> Consider this... The board does not bring TLP release votes to board@,
> why on earth must the IPMC do so?
> >>
> >> I've half a mind to got back the wayback machine and pull the original
> >> incubator polices and propose them as the "new" policies (yes, some
> >> changes have been good, but it seems to me that many have not)
> >>
> >
> > So I couldn't find anything in 2003, but 2004 has this page[1] which
> included the text:
> >
> > "Podlings in Incubation SHALL NOT perform any releases of software
> without the explicit approval of the Incubator PMC. Such approval SHALL be
> given only after the Incubator PMC has followed the process detailed in
> (Reference to Charter), and SHALL NOT occur until all source has been
> legally transferred to the ASF."
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the
> Podling SHALL formally request the Incubator PMC approve such a release.
> The request SHALL have the endorsement of the Mentor."
> >
> > So it seems that this has been with us for a long while.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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