incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:07:50 GMT


On 2/4/2012 7:29 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
> On 2/4/12 12:28 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
>>> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
>>> community has demonstrated viability.
>> I think that everyone here agrees.  These would not be 'full PMC's... the
>> ASF has a general 'set your own policies, hands off until it's broke'
>> policy
>> towards projects.
>> Nobody is suggesting that an incoming 'project under incubation' would be
>> free of such rules, policies or oversight.  Where usual TLP's are free to
>> set the most flexible policies that suit their participants, any project
>> under incubation has a more stringent set of ComDev defined 'best
>> practices'
>> that they must and will follow.  If as a full TLP they decide a tweak here
>> or there help their community, it's up to the board to permit that.  And
>> generally, the board is flexibly permissive.
>> But with one Champion not of the project itself, but of the ASF, and
>> several
>> additional mentors/overseers/ombudsmen, no incubating effort is going to
>> enjoy the free reign that TLP's have.  If only all projects had that sort
>> of supervision, the foundation would be quite secure in knowing that all
>> projects are running as non-factional, non-partisan and non-commercial
>> efforts to create software for the public good.
> I think the disconnect I was trying to point out is that the proposal
> itself assumes that the new PMC is fully functional so long as at least 3
> ASF members are a part of it and the PMC chair is the champion.  Taking
> Rave as an example, we walked in the door with ~20 non-ASF member PPMC
> members.  Not that it would have happened in our instance, but I can
> envision a case where a project enters the ASF and isn't forced to
> understand how things are done here (bad releases, policies, etc).  At
> that point, the board is forced to step in and rectify the situation, when
> the same outcome could have been avoided by gradually stepping the
> community up in authority.

Just to clarify the same happens today at TLPs and there isn't a schema,
so the drive to make things consistent would charge the board with solving
this once for all incubating and full projectss at once - comdev docs will
help.  And podlings do fall off the rails without the IPMC noticing, so it
is pretty clear that 'IPMC' oversight is something of a falacy.

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

View raw message