incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:28:00 GMT
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
>>>> tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
>>>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>>>> micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
>>>> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
>>>> simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).
>>> As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also removes
much of the oversight and practically all of the help and support.  
>> One of my problems is that most of the biggest fans of micromanagement
>> and endless debate here at incubator spend nearly no time looking over
>> the graduated projects throughout the foundation to ensure they are
>> being overseen.  If that doesn't happen, the ASF will suffer the death
>> of 1000 fractures.
>> This proposal suggests that every project throughout the ASF needs the
>> support of the ASF's members, that incubating projects simply need to
>> pay extra attentions to each and every one of those requirements at
>> first, in order to prove they are likely to succeed.  Then they can
>> move on to operating as a full TLP, going back to the very same resources
>> they enjoyed during their incubation during the rough patches.
> Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling be a subproject
of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and responsibility they are missing
today. You don't need to blow away the IPMC to fix this problem.

So, let me get this straight.

"Make incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they are missing today?"

Sounds a ton like my existing proposal. With some kitchen sink (the IPMC) added in.

If incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they lack have today, there
no IPMC.


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

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

View raw message