incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:33:22 GMT
Hey Greg,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.

I was in "sort of concurrence" as well.

I think what you guys are proposing is that you want to keep the Incubator
VP around to manage/oversee the implementation of my proposal to deconstruct
the Incubator. 

Let's say for 6 months or something, while it's implemented. Is that fair?

If that's the case, I'm +1 to keep the position around, and I'm +1 to 
fill the role and implement the proposal and be the person responsible
for reporting out on it to the board. 


> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. <> wrote:
>> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :)  We might want to break
>> this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
>> Anyways, just one commment;
>> On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>> I can easily see a small group of
>>>> people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate.
>>>> I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution
>>>> to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be
>>>> handled by the TLP itself by graduation time)
>>> I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me,
>>> but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared
>>> to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other
>>> ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be
>>> on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that
>>> those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys
>>> are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that
>>> organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of
>>> ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help
>>> shepherd them in just the way it works today.
>> You mention also "No need for the position anymore. Just another report to
>> have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the
>> board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1."
>> What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the
>> middle man.  Think of this VP as the expediter.  The one who takes a whole
>> stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to
>> "Fill this in, and we'll submit these things".
>> This VP would not be in the middle.  They would be on the sideline.  If
>> the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then
>> marvelous.  If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution
>> in their lives, the VP is there to assist.
>> The VP keeps the "files" on process.  Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best
>> Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter
>> "Your proposal should state" formal documentation.  Think in terms of
>> ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks.  They don't stand 'over' any
>> committee.  They gather, define and communicate process.  That is the
>> role of VP, Project Incubation.  Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs)
>> assume the *responsibility* for following those processes.  Not a traffic
>> cop, but a tourist guide.
>> It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just
>> as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring
>> to and caring for the projects in the Attic.  Sure, ComDev will have some
>> good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement.
>> But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the
>> board's feedback.  If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP
>> would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before
>> the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting.
>> So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether
>> it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation.  It can't be left
>> in a hundred different hands to drop.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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