incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
Date Fri, 08 Nov 2013 06:22:46 GMT
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
> As soon as you step off your soapbox, be sure to provide some
> suggestions...

When an individual makes major contributions to the incubation of a podling --
particularly in the areas of legal and community development -- they should be
rewarded with a binding vote.  Meritocracy should apply to podlings as it does
to TLPs.

By expressly dangling the incentive of a binding vote in front of podling core
contributors, we will motivate more of them to learn "The Apache Way" more
thoroughly and to become outstanding IP stewards.  The presence of these
individuals will then compensate for the natural phenomenon of Mentor
attrition, and the problem of IPMC release vote scarcity will diminish.

Concretely, there are several possible implementations.

There's this pTLP variant:

1.  Start with a Board resolution establishing a pTLP PMC seeded with IPMC
2.  Vote podling contributors onto the PMC as they demonstrate merit.
3.  When there are enough PMC members, consider graduation.

A more incremental approach, suggested upthread, is to start voting select
podling contributors onto the IPMC more aggressively.  However, there are a
few drawbacks:

*   With rare exceptions, podling contributors have generally been voted onto
    the IPMC to replace missing Mentors.  Rewarding excellence proactively is
    a completely different mentality.  For example, under this model it would
    have been *wrong* that CloudStack made it through to graduation without
    landing at least two of its stellar contributors on the IPMC.
*   Enlarging the IPMC makes a lot of people uncomfortable.  I'm leery that
    increasing the pace too much may provoke controversy and "too many cooks"
*   The private@incubator list would get a lot noisier.

Then there's the suggestion of electing "Podling Chairs", possibly augmented
with Co-Chairs.  Granting extra privileges to a solo leader seems somewhat
less Apache-like than rewarding merit on an individual basis.  However, in
practice having a podling Chair would solve *other* problems in addition to
mitigating the problem of vote scarcity, and it would probably be the least
controversial option to implement.

Would "Podling Chairs" join the IPMC, presumably voted in by the podling's
Mentors?  If not, how would we grant them a binding vote?

Also, if a new person gets voted in as "Podling Chair", are we OK with the
podling's increasing IPMC representation?  (I think that could have the
desirable side effect of encouraging project founders to give up the "Podling
Chair" position for the greater good of the podling.)

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message