incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache
Date Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:54:00 GMT
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 6:31 PM Rich Bowen <> wrote:
> A couple of thoughts:
> Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they are
> not yet full Apache projects.

Actually we compel them to call themselves Apache Foo (incubating)

Another section in that same page contains "A podling MUST now be
called Apache Podling-Name"  and the 'MUST' in that sentence is

> While in the incubator we should expect podlibgs to fail at the rules.
> They're new to them and many of them feel arbitrary, even capricious, to
> those coming in from outside. We should make it safe to fail until they are
> ready to graduate. We should nurture them as long as they are moving
> towards that goal.
> I cannot disagree with your reading of our resolutions. But I wonder if
> that reality is producing good citizen projects or a bunch of resentful
> people following rules they don't understand or embrace because they know
> they have to.

I think in a substantial number of cases our existing process causes
people to fail to understand our culture because the focus is on the
rules (not saying that rules aren't important) and creates an
antagonistic relationship. I also think that to a large degree this is
won and lost based on initial expectations with the champion, and
ongoing support from mentors.

> Zipkin is only the latest project which clearly didn't get it and has left
> angry. I would rather a project realize that they don't fit and be able to
> leave with their dignity without having also to leave hating what we stand
> for.
> I want our new graduates to love and understand the ASF not merely tolerate
> it.


> I want the incubator to respond to failure with gentle correction rather
> than scoldings.
> Specifically I think podlings should be able to produce releases that are
> not asf complient and have them clearly labeled as such. Because they are
> not TLPs yet and so cannot be held to the same standard. This must be
> accompanied by a movement towards being a TLP, not some eternal incubation.

Agreed - I think it's a process.
My reading of the resolution is that the the Board has delegated
management of this process to the IPMC.
I think our (the IPMC) tendencies, especially as developers, has
hindered our assumption of that management process. I think we tend to
like things being boolean - and of course it's far easier to check
boxes off on a checklist and have something clean, regardless of how
hard it is to get to that state.

> The incubator should be a mentor - an educator - not a jury.

I don't think we are far apart on this. I think that the IPMC has been
tasked with making a business decision of what should be allowed to
slide, though it's historically not been what we have done.

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

View raw message