incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:00:49 GMT
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <> wrote:

> Hi Ross,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler <>
> Reply-To: "" <>
> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:20 PM
> To: "" <>
> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
> majority vote vs consensus)
> >On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> >
> >
> >Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> >huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
> Yep this is the sticking point where we disagree -- b/c I disagree with
> that.
> 2 tasks are not a huge range. Also my table of responsibilities in the
> proposal [1]
> I believe clearly specifies where any responsibility is shifted and not
> one of
> them is the Board.

There are two responsibilities you list that shift to the board - 1) spots
problems with mentoring 2) fixes problems with mentoring.

Also in your proposal oversight of releases is discarded and therefore I
would add "spots problems with releases" is also therefore ultimately the
boards responsibility.

Jukka & now Benson have IMO been successful in focusing podlings on what
they need to do to graduate and pushing them through the process - rather
than staying for years in the incubator. So I would add this to the list of
what the board would need to pick up.

Lastly I would also say that shifting voting on new projects from a public
to private list is not an improvement and would exclude those proposing
from answering any objections or concerns.


> So I've enumerated at least the concerns of myself and
> many others about
> a range of tasks, and addressed them (for well over a year). I've heard
> zero feedback
> from you about what's wrong with my table, and what I've missed, what
> could be improved
> and have heard nothing but "it's wrong" (paraphrased) or "it doesn't cover
> all the tasks
> that of course will get dropped on the Board"? I've done the work to
> document
> my thoughts. You don't get to then just keep telling me it's wrong without
> specifying
> what precisely is wrong about it.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
> >> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
> >>
> >
> >I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> >active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> >should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
> Actually it should be expected -- there is a reason that people like Jim
> mentored AOO -- people like Sam joined in, and so did Greg with AOO and
> Bloodhound (all 3 are directors). There is a reason that Bertrand has been
> very active in the Incubator with Flex and other recent projects. Same as
> Rich with Allura -- Roy helps a lot too with clarifications when needed.
> I've seen more than a handful of emails from Brett Porter too, so he's
> definitely around.
> So, sorry Directors too pay just as much attention to PPMCs and to the
> Incubator based on their
> own individual Incubator and Director hats, and based on their reporting.
> >
> >
> >> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
> >> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
> >> at the top of the Incubator report).
> >
> >
> >I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
> >are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> >foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> >board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> >report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.
> >
> >
> >
> >> What i can see, and what I think even Upayavira and Ross
> >> agree
> >> with -- and you too Benson -- is that there is a grave problem here and
> >>it
> >> needs' a fixin'. My deconstruction proposal does that.
> >>
> >
> >No, I do not agree there is a grave problem. I have denied that
> >repeatedly.
> >The IPMC has problems, but in the main it works extremely well.
> Fine you don't think it's grave. I don't care how it's classified
> ('grave',
> 'purple', 'pink', 'yellow', whatever). There is a problem is what I
> probably
> should have said.
> Look, I hear you that, it's probably possible that folks can come up with
> even yet another layer beyond the Shepherds, etc., and that that can goad
> people into thinking stuff is fixed around here. Jukka's work was great,
> and
> I applaud him for it, but as I said at the time, to me we're just adding
> more
> and more layers to the onion, instead of stripping it down to its roots and
> core.
> Also it's possible that if you guys continue to add layers, and suggest
> mechanisms
> for organizing those that are active around here, I may just go back to my
> merry
> way of getting podlings through the Incubator, graduated, and taught in
> the ASF
> way.
> But it's also possible that the existence of this super/meta committee and
> its
> super awesome badges that many of the folks here are just too blind to
> give them up
> will wain on individuals.
> >
> >[..snip..]
> >The first of these two roles is, for the most part, where the IPMC can
> >sometimes reach stagnation and can become extremely confusing to podlings
> >(getting multiple answers for one question for example). Maybe it is time
> >to move this to ComDev and take that area of conflict away from the IPMC.
> >This would leave the IPMC to focus on providing the oversight that Jukka's
> >new processes have started to heal and Benson is now fine-tuning.
> I suggested this in my proposal -- and also creating
> which is home to all the documentation/processes, etc. This is step #1
> in my proposal BTW (moving to ComDev).
> Also note the section titled:
> Use Cases for Future Incubator Documentation Requests to ComDev
> Cheers,
> Chris
> [1]
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message