incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:00:04 GMT
Hi Niall,

First off, thanks for reading my proposal!

Specific comments below:

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

From: Niall Pemberton <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013 7:00 AM
To: general-incubator <>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)

>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.

I agree, "spots problems with mentoring" could potentially fall on the
if the incoming new project and its 3 ASF members don't spot the problem
beforehand. Just like it falls to the the board related to all projects if
there are "issues" (mentoring, the Apache Way or otherwise).

Before I add that to my proposal, I would ask you to consider some of my
recent emails related to mentoring issues with podlings, and ask that if
you think that the IPMC is currently doing a great of spotting problems
with mentoring.

If you, if you can please cite examples that would be great. I have counter
examples (Mesos, for one) wherein which emails requesting help have gone
unanswered, but if you have others in support of that, I'd appreciate

>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.

My philosophy is that there can remain a small set of mentors, e.g., these
"shepherds" if you will that ought to volunteer for projects as they come
into the ASF and be part of their initial PMC. The initial "Champion" role
should also be an ASF member, until the incoming project is ready to elect
its own chair (should happen in < 1 year).

These same people are likely going to be the same people who are great at
checking releases now (sebb, Marvin, others). There doesn't need to be an
IPMC for them to do that.

>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
>what the board would need to pick up.

Well sorry, I don't think it's Jukka and Benson. I've never been a
once, neither has Chris Douglas, neither has a bunch of people that have
successfully brought podlings through the Incubator as of late.

Jukka and Benson aren't necessarily the only reasons that things shaped up
around here though I wholly appreciate their efforts.

>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.

Yes, I am +1 for that. In my proposal, I've gone and updated it to shift
that responsibility to voting on general@incubator (which as I mention
in my proposal will remain).

One note I'd add -- in my proposal, responsibility is not directly shifted
onto the board, until it's shown that the incoming project's committee
is unable to handle it:

(see shifted responsibility:
The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the
or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs.




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