Thanks for your comments Jim. You will see from the archives that I share most of your concerns about probationary TLPs. However a number of IPMC members have argued strongly for the concept.
I do believe there is merit in experimenting with different models of incubation and I do believe the probationary TLP has idea has some merit hiding "under the covers". For me the problem is that it is presented as part of a larger "dismantling the IPMC" case. I do not believe the idea of dismantling the IPMC is a good one, but for most of us the dislike of this argument means the pTLP idea is not being considered. As you will have seen my proposal is to make the project a podling first then work with the IPMC to define the pTLP process. My intention is for this to address as many of the proposed solutions to issues collected on the IPMC wiki [1] as possible. One of those solutions is the pTLP idea. If we take the extreme view (as presented in Chris' original proposal) this means the pTLP will report to board. I intend to bring the proposal from the IPMC to the board for feedback (at least two directors have indicated value in the proposal when acting as IPMC members). Should the board reject this proposal we will have clearly defined a nice clean incubation process implementing many solutions offered in the wiki. We will see Stratos graduating in good healthy time as a result. It might help if I'm explicit about the benefit that I see in the pTLP proposal. For me I see that it addresses the common problem of mentor atrophy (Issue 01 on the wiki). For it to truly work we need podling members to have binding votes. The pTLP idea is one route to doing this (vote the podling members into the pTLP PMC) another way to do it is to vote them into the IPMC. Benson tried, for some time to address this but was caught in the cross-hairs of entrenched positions within the IPMC. My intention with this experiment is to bring both sides into a common place to work together on a solution rather than to spend all day throwing emails at this list. As you can see, regardless of the outcome, the IPMC will have gained clarity around one (vigorously supported) proposal which has been made 2-3 times over the last couple of years but has never been supported by action to test it in practice. This is an opportunity to test it. If the Board rejects the pTLP idea then we have to think about another way to bring the benefits of the proposal into the incubation process. I have my ideas, as do others, in the past they have always been shouted down. Once this experiment is complete and Stratos is a TLP I will turn my attention to testing the alternative solutions. On the other hand if it turns out this experiment finds a pTLP model that works we can just get on with implementing it. Either way we can get out of this period of stagnation we are (caused by Issue 03 on the wiki). Thank you for raising your concerns. Thank you for making your -1 clear and also for indicating it is not a veto (of course it is a good indicator of how you are likely to vote as a Director, this is very useful - thank you). The experiment can continue but we need to ensure that we address the concerns raised by Jim if this is ever to fly as a repeatable process. I propose we ensure that whatever we put before the board in July has an alternative course of action that does not disenfranchise the IPMC and does not push responsibility to the board. This way we can ensure that the Stratos project still gets a smooth passage through the incubation process. Ross [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013 On 14 June 2013 13:45, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > FWIW: IMO the Incubator still serves a crucial role in > the social and legal aspects of *creating* an Apache > project and community. The Probationary TLP opens us > up to more risk for what I can see as no real benefit > or reduction in effort or resources. > > Also, the unwash public is aware of the distinction between > ASF Incubator projects and "real" PMCs and there is the understanding > that Incubator podlings are still finding their way, and that > the quality of their release and their community structure > may not be on the same level as official TLPs. This distinction > will now be lost. Again, I see risk with no real benefit or > reason. > > Some podlings don't make it, and that's a shame, but it's > a relatively painless situation. When a TLP, probationary > or not, doesn't make, it's much more painful. And because > it's a TLP, there is more incentive to "keep on trying" to > make it work and it forces the board to be involved. The > board is a hammer, not a scalpel. > > So I am +1 for Stratos as a regular podling, but -1 (NOT > a veto) as a probationary TLP (since I am -1 for the > concept in general). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
