incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:49:12 GMT
Hey Ross,

-----Original Message-----

From: Ross Gardler <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

>I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
>each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded. That
>is why the IPMC submits a board report.

What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1] outside of
what the board already does for PMCs? I count a total of 0 in the right
column of my table.

Being specific myself:

1. Directors review the IPMC report, and are charged (at least the Director
shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with
the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion before
removing specific podling reports, and only leaving the summary -- this
was nixed.
Directors are still charged with reviewing podling individual reports,
same as
they are with actual project reports. Thus, if you say there are no more
as I do in my proposal, please define, specifically, where the extra work

2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little centralized
Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka! Fix it
PMC! OK, so with that said, what's the problem then by saying, no more
there are simply PMCs? New projects come in to the ASF via steps 3-5 in my
proposal -- 
through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of
merit, community, etc,
guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready, the
board VOTEs
on the incoming project(s). This is true today. Incubator "podlings" are
*not officially 
endorsed projects of the ASF* until they are turned into TLPs by board
Again, so what's changed?

What's even more hilarious and illustrative of the guise towards
is that there have been discussions within this very same thread that
instead of 
telling the board there are problems with the Incubator, that we should
"fix them ourselves"
here. Hehe. Kind of a reflexive but powerful look in the mirror about the
to move *away* from centralization.

Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the goal
of the ASF
is for the PMCs to be self governing? The "Apache way" is intimated
through tribal
knowledge of its members. Activeness of a member (and 3 of them on a PMC)
is something
that the board is aware of, so these things will get caught at project
creation, and/or 
through personnel additions incrementally.

>That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
>stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all this up
>again. For now lets agree to differ.

No problem -- I think we're closer than it seems, but yes, I'm fine with
dropping it.



>On 28 March 2013 16:19, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>> wrote:
>> Hey Ross,
>> >> >I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
>> >legally
>> >> >responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it
>> >>it
>> >> >with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
>> >>
>> >> Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
>> >> Incubator
>> >> deconstruction proposal [1]. In fact, it does not make the board
>> >> responsible
>> >> in any different way than the board is currently responsible for its
>> >> plethora of
>> >> TLPs -- IOW, it doesn't change a thing. It basically suggests that
>> >> incoming projects
>> >> can simply fast track to (t)LPs from the get go, so long as they have
>> >>>= 3
>> >> ASF members
>> >> present to help execute and manage the Incubator "process" which
>> >> exists in
>> >> my proposed deconstruction.
>> >
>> >My point is that all the oversight currently provided by the IPMC would
>> >have to be provided by the board. We already know that having three
>> >mentors
>> >does not guarantee adequate support for podlings.
>> I guess I would ask "what oversight"? There is no global IPMC oversight.
>> Ever since Joe's experiment, and even before, the podlings that get
>> the Incubator (and I've taken quite a few now, and recently, so I think
>> can speak from a position of experience here within the last few years),
>> are the ones that have active mentors and *distributed*, not
>> oversight.
>> IOW, I'm not seeing any IPMC oversight at the moment. I'm seeing good
>> mentors,
>> located in each podling, distributed, that get podlings through. Those
>> stall well they need help. Usually the help is debated endlessly, and
>> solved,
>> or simply solved with more active/better mentors.
>> So, that's my whole point. You either agree with me that there is no
>> oversight at the moment (for years now), and that really podlings are
>> (well the ones that graduate within a fixed set of time as Sam was
>> to measure
>> before, or simply point out that is) or you still believe that there is
>> oversight
>> within the IPMC. I personally don't. That's why I wrote the proposal.
>> I think
>> that's at least evident to me and more than a few others that that's the
>> problem here
>> and that's why I don't think the Incubator should exist anymore in its
>> current form
>> and should be deconstructed :)
>> Thanks for your comments and conversation and for listening.
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email:
>> WWW:
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>Programme Leader (Open Development)

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

View raw message