incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Caleb Welton <>
Subject Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
Date Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:12:53 GMT
I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...

Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
need to be moving towards.

Especially starting with an established team working on close source
project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
useful guidance.

If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are there
particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that
are missing?


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay <> wrote:

> +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop
> more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
> While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural
> growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> artificially.
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <>
> > wrote:
> > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> explain
> > why.
> >
> > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > projects to complete.
> >
> > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > different.
> >
> > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >

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