incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Franklin, Matthew B." <>
Subject RE: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:51:57 GMT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jukka Zitting []
>Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:27 PM
>Subject: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
>[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
>On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
><> wrote:
>As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
>in one go, wouldn't it make more sense to gradually shift into a new
>way of doing things?


>You're proposing that podlings should start as full TLPs (with ASF
>members on board for mentoring) right from the beginning. Instead of
>changing the rules on all podlings at the same time, how about we try
>this out by giving interested podlings (or new proposals) this "direct
>to TLP" option?
>If that works out better than the current Incubator model, we can stop
>accepting more old-style podlings and just direct them into TLPs right
>from the beginning. Meanwhile any existing podlings should have a
>chance to graduate under the existing rules unless they rather choose
>to use this "direct to TLP" option.
>If as a result there's no more podlings in the Incubator, that's IMHO
>then the right time to shut down the IPMC, not before. And if it turns
>out that the proposed new model doesn't work as expected, we still
>have the current processes and structures to fall back to.
>The current Incubator model certainly has flaws, but it also does a
>lot of things right. There are good reasons for things like the extra
>publicity and release constraints placed on podlings, and the proposed
>model doesn't address how such restrictions would still work without
>the incubator. I note that many of the original constraints of the
>Incubator (no releases, etc.) turned out to be unnecessarily strict in
>practice, so it could well be that everything will work out smoothly
>also without the extra red tape. But small, reversible steps into such
>unknown territory are clearly preferable to major leaps of faith.

In my year working in an incubator podling, I have come to see that there are a lot of very
valuable aspects to the organization; some IMO critical to the success and growth of Apache
as a whole.  IMHO, any changes made must be cognizant of all aspects of the incubator and
not be a reaction to specific pain points.  That isn't to say that new things shouldn't be
tried and new direction isn't important.  Likewise, these revolution style proposals themselves
hold value as they explore out-of-the-box approaches that can be incorporated into an evolutionary
roadmap or maybe even adopted wholesale if the entire community agrees on the approach.  

>From what I can tell from the 4+ threads, thousands of written words and multitudes of
opinions there is a need to address some issues that haven't scaled with the incubator.  I
think Leo in a different thread attempted to catalog some invariants and desires that highlight
these points.  I personally favor the evolutionary approach Jukka is suggesting; but I am
having a hard time keeping up with where, how and when to participate in these discussions.

So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in the discussion,
I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and ask everyone who has a new "plan"
for the incubator to draft proposals on the wiki as Chris did.  At that point, we could have
a bake-off discussion where the community has the ability to evaluate and chime in with their


>Jukka Zitting
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message