incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:02:16 GMT
> To summarise. The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond
> repair). We need as many mentors as we can get, and a smaller group of
> people who are delegated responsibility for the incubator. The board
> wants a group of folks to take responsibility for overseeing the early
> life of communities at the ASF. These are, to my mind, the criteria that
> we should be using to evaluate any suggestions as to how the incubator
> should be structured. If it doesn't meet these, it won't float.

I think there's something missing here. The incubator structure as we
know it is, very intentionally, a variation on the standard TLP model.
There is a tree in svn (ok, also some git repos). There are PMC
members. There are committers. Releases and committer karma are
controlled by the PMC. All nice and neat, just like all other TLPs.
The IPMC is, in fact, a PMC.

Chris M observes, if I may parody, that it's 'just like' the
discredited umbrella projects, and proposes to fix this by making
podlings even more like the standard model -- each one a TLP
supervised by The Board. Ross proposes to establish an interior
structure to the incubator. People seem to prefer to stay close to the
standard model, for good reason, as the legal structure is all worked

I think that any alternative has to specifically address the alternate
legal structure. Who votes on releases? Who votes on karma? I
personally don't have a problem with a plan in which the incubator
isn't really a PMC at the end of the day. One way to combine Ross and
Chris is to say, 'well, the Board could decide that it can't watch 22
nascent projects, so it's delegated that to a committee. The
'podlings' are projects, and they have an initial PMC composed
entirely of Foundation members, which grows over time, and the
'incubator committee' serves as the board's representatives in
watching them.'

Really, the big argument here is whether it's broken enough to fix. On
the 'endless discussion' front, I think not. It would be easier to
repair the chair to than to change the structure. On the supervision
front, well, there's a big disagreement here.

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

View raw message