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 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:11:58 GMT
Hi Bill,

On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> [...snip large thought...please check archives here to see it:
>> Anyways I could type more but I think I've beat this horse to death. I appeal
>> to you and to the rest of the board members reading this thread will consider
>> my proposal. Thanks for reading.
>> --Chris, who I'll note *does* care about the IPMC and *does* care a ton about Apache
>> and the folks here and our hallowed status as an awesome open source organization.
> Giving this thread all due consideration, with its own subject;

Thanks Bill.

> I'd modify your proposal just a smidge.  Keep an Incubator VP with a very small
> operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process
> of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions.  Some amount
> of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee.

I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev
can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is.

> Take "VP, Project Incubation" out of the role of judging incoming or graduating
> projects.  Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in
> as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard
> (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience).
> Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors.  Make a choice between
> including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote
> the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and
> somewhat predictable flowchart.
> Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new
> mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost
> their mentors.  This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset
> on established projects.
> Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend
> to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP.

If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP
Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements
above and think they jive with my proposal. 

>  Why?  Given
> the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented
> by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held,
> and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have
> done internal harm.  Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals
> and cast such votes.  That's OK, they are still representative of the membership.
> If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but
> emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the
> proposed project.

Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal 
and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would
mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP 
Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than
served their purpose. 

> In short, all incoming projects continue into an "Incubation" phase as we all
> understand it, subject to additional scrutiny and oversight by a collection
> of mentors and additional scrutiny by the board, reflected in their monthly
> and then quarterly report.  A scorecard continues for the incubating projects
> of the milestones they must reach to graduate into a full fledged project.


> And we can even continue to restrict them to an domain
> until they reach that milestone.

Meh, I don't think that matters, honestly. If they want to be, who
cares, so long as they are following the website and trademarks guidelines for 
what the website should say aka *large bold words* saying Incubation :)

> But they are plugged in from day one into the same array of services offered
> by Board/Legal/Infrastructure/Press/Trademarks/ComDev/ConCom with mentors to
> help them navigate.  Beyond VP, Project Incubation, we will probably uncover
> other obvious services that the ASF should provide as a VP or committee of
> peers to nurture incoming podlings into successful, healthy projects.

Yep, agreed with the above, minus the VP Incubation (or Incubator VP role), 
and associated committee. There's no need for it.

> Every previous restriction on incubating podlings has been eliminated over
> the past 8 years.  There is no reason to continue the incubator committee
> as an ombudsman, when every issue that applies to each incubating podling
> simultaneously applies to each established project.

Yep, and there's no reason to continue the Incubator committee, period.

Thanks for the comments BIll. 


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