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 Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:01:03 GMT
On 2/3/12 9:28 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
<> wrote:

>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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation
>>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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 is
>no IPMC.

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.  Having watched the Rave community
(and myself) grow into the Apache way under the incubator, I can tell you
that we needed time to figure out who we as a community were before we
were ready to have any authority.  I will also say that we wouldn't have
been able to grow as quickly if there wasn't something like this community
to watch and engage with as needed.  If every project came as essentially
a TLP, we lose some of the teaching advantages that the incubator
currently offers.  

I do agree with some of your concerns and feel that we moved through this
early phase quickly and were ready to assume some authority; but, I can't
say that we were ready day 0.  I think your proposal perfectly targets
communities that have demonstrated that they are engaging in the Apache
Way; but, if you assume that, then what we need is a restructuring of the
incubator, not a dismantling of it.

In the end, I think you can meet your goals and maybe even reach some
approximation of for proposal, so long as you don't forget the valuable
parts of the incubator while planning the future.

>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:

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

View raw message