On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 AM, 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 replaces >>> 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 legally >>> 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 still >>> 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 through > the Incubator (and I've taken quite a few now, and recently, so I think I > can speak from a position of experience here within the last few years), > are the ones that have active mentors and *distributed*, not *centralized* > 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 that > stall well they need help. Usually the help is debated endlessly, and not > solved, > or simply solved with more active/better mentors.
My experience as a shepherd shows that you can in fact recognize podling issues and eventually get them to the point where graduation of one kind or another happens. Two examples: EasyAnt graduating to Apache Ant. Etch finally graduated with a small, but sufficient PMC. > So, that's my whole point. You either agree with me that there is no IPMC > oversight at the moment (for years now), and that really podlings are TLPs > (well the ones that graduate within a fixed set of time as Sam was trying > to measure > before, or simply point out that is) or you still believe that there is > oversight > within the IPMC. I don't think it is an either / or. The current amount of oversight for any podling is a function of mentors, current IPMC dynamics, and real life influences. The shepherds serve a purpose as more of a divining rod into that dynamic, many solutions are possible, and the podling needs to be pushed into making choices. Regards, Dave > I personally don't. That's why I wrote the proposal. And > 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: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
