incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henry Saputra <>
Subject Re: Reflections from the outgoing Chair
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:25:32 GMT
Thanks for all the hard work Roman!

- Henry

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <> wrote:
> Hi!
> when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on
> me beginning of 2014 it was crucial  that the
> position remains to be rotated among IPMC members.
> As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period
> was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months
> makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something,
> while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a
> rotating chair.
> At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last
> day of the year a perfect  cut-off point to start talking about
> transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue:
> At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is
> not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That
> is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody
> involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC
> gets completely dissolved. Here's why:
> First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris
> and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks
> the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all
> about: Apache project on training wheels.  Instead of teaching
> our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC
> and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board,
> we have IPMC.
> After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully
> convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem
> with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all
> the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient
> of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with
> responsibility.
> While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system
> is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability
> What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with
> authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the
> project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC
> of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and
> the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal
> "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status
> is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without
> the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case
> with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing
> is clearly lacking.
> Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC
> in order to fix this, one might say that something along the
> lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think
> that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility
> is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating
> project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either
> in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma
> (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to).
> But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility
> wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the
> way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in
> overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction
> will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as
> producing releases or growing the community. The scalability
> of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still
> needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover
> if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would
> all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation
> at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If nothing else, this real
> engagement gives the board a very early indicator of
> its own scalability issues if any. Early warning are a good
> thing, not something that needs to be feared.
> All in all, it feels like direct overseeing of Incubating projects
> would be a good thing for the poddlings, a good thing for
> the mentors, a good thing for the board and ultimately
> the only mature and responsible way of making sure that
> the project we try to embrace get the best shot of becoming
> ASF TLPs. At this point, I'm struggling to see any potential
> negative effects. In fact, if there's one thing I really would
> like everybody commenting on this thread to focus on it would
> be that: arguing for potential downsides.
> With that, I'd like to thank all of my IPMC colleagues for
> this great opportunity and wish all of you the Happiest
> New Year!
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ==============
> From: Mattmann, Chris A
> [...snip...]
> It’s not just the board - again please see the table I’ve listed
> at the bottom of the wiki. What my proposal does is remove the thinly
> veiled “IPMC” as the “catch all” which in fact doesn’t catch all. On
> its 150+ person committee - I supposed there are < 20 active people
> who keep showing up. I have statistics to prove it (see my active
> mentors tool I’ve shown) - I have experience having mentored many
> podlings to prove it; and the mailing threads prove it. So, promote
> those 20 people to ComDev PMC, promote them to ASF members, promote
> them however, my guess is that they *care* about the foundation; we
> want these people helping new projects, and they will continue to
> help those new projects - along with the board - along with everyone
> else.
> [...snip...]
> ===============
> From: Benson Margulies
> [...snip...]
> Here is where the 'Mentors in the Project' (whether directly reporting
> to the board or not) leaps up and looks like a great idea to me. The
> whole goal of incubation is to run an Apache project on training
> wheels. How does an Apache project run? WIth a chair and PMC members
> supervising it and _reporting to the board_.  The proposal, as I see
> it, is to tell the champion and other mentors that they, and not the
> entire IPMC in some nebulous fashion, are the PMC in the PPMC. By the
> time the podling graduates, their need to have expanded themselves to
> a larger group.
> The board may choose to keep the IPMC around to organize and support
> this process. The board may choose to continue to ask the IPMC to add
> an extra layer of supervision. But the heart of the proposal is to
> insist that every podling be nucleated around at least three people
> who have the experience to operate as a PMC and have volunteered for
> the responsibility.
> [...snip...]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message