incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))
Date Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:46:09 GMT
I absolutely agree with Greg Stein. I can't find any single reason to keep
unsubscribed members of IPMC in the roster. These members can be asked to
subscribe, and if they do, then ok; if don't - it is perfectly ok to remove.

Similarly, I don't see reasons for having inactive TLP PMC members. I've
suggested the same change in Apache Ignite, but I don't clearly understand
why remained members resisting this change.


пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 09:58, Ross Gardler <ross@gardler.me>:

> That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people...
>
> I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the
> experiments) or any of the derivatives that came from it. I think I have
> changed my position. Largely based on the fact that every single project
> I've discussed the ASF with in the last 3-5 years has had a very inaccurate
> perception of how the ASF works. I believe a large part of this is due, in
> part, to the issues being discussed in this thread.
>
> I do not understand how a foundation which prides itself in having very
> little bureaucratic red tape can be seen as having so much red tape. The
> projects I talk to just want to build software. It used to be that the ASF
> focused on running the legal and operational aspects of the foundation
> projects and developers on projects wrote code. I'm not sure that's true
> anymore.
>
> We need to fix it.
>
> I look forward to hearing how the IPMC will seek to strip down the
> bureaucracy and get back to mentoring the incoming projects on how the ASF
> is structured so they can get (relatively) quick and clear answers to their
> questions.
>
> Ross
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 10:19 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy
> general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling
> ... release candidates))
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ross Gardler <ross@gardler.me> wrote:
>
> > If a podling is a committee in its own right then it can be empowered to
> > act on behalf of the board and this its releases can be an act of the
> > foundation.
> >
> >...
>
> > Podlings would only become full TLPs once they have demonstrated their
> > ability to do formal releases.
> >
>
> The above pair of concepts was offered in $priorCycle as "provisional TLPs"
> (pTLP). I believe the idea ended when Sam pointed out that if a pTLP is
> trusted, then why not just call it a TLP and trust it to label its releases
> appropriately? Thus, just create TLPs immediately for a "podling"
>
> [ I know Ross knows this; but for $others who may want to look at
> historical proposals, and compare/contrast to current discussion ... search
> for "pTLP" ]
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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