I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports for podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of cases. I'll expand on that in Chris' thread.
I'll note that in this thread I answered the question of who Stratos should report to with the board, but I'll also note I don't expect the board to provide mentoring. That is a key difference between what I am proposing for pTLP and the original deconstruction proposal. Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > >... > > Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea. > > I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting. > > Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here... > > The Incubator gathers reports from all of its podlings. It reviews > them, discusses some aspects with those podlings, and then it files a > report with the ASF Board. Three paragraphs stating, "Hey. No issues. > Everything is going great. Community is good. Legal is good. kthxbai." > > Would that fly with the ASF Board? > > Not a chance. The simple fact is that the Board *does* want to see > reports from podlings. Those podlings will (hopefully) become part of > the Foundation one day. The Board is *keenly* interested in what is > going on, and how those podlings are doing. > > If you suggest a model of a total black box. Where *no* podling > information escapes from the Incubator to the Board. And then one > day... *poof!!* ... a graduation resolution appears before the Board. > Do you honestly think the Board would just sign off on that? Again: > not a chance. > > What this really means is: the Board wants to review podlings' > progress and operations. I don't see how it can be argued any other > way. So if that is true, then why does the IPMC need to be a middle > man? Why not provide those reports from the podling directly to the > Board? And why not get the podling directly engaged with the actual > operation of the Foundation? About how to report to the Board? About > shepherds, watching for commentary in the agenda, about committing to > that agenda!, and about paying attention to board@ and its operations. > If we want to teach new communities about how the ASF works, then why > the artificial operation of the Incubator? Why not place them directly > in contact with the *real* ASF? > > By all measures, Apache Subversion would have been a pTLP when it > arrived at the Incubator. But we integrated very well into the ASF > because there were Members, Directors, and other long-term Apache > people who could answer "huh? what is a PMC Member? how does that map > to our 'full committer' status? what are these reports?" ... and more. > The close attention, and the direct integration with the Foundation, > worked as well as you could expect. The Incubator did not provide much > value, beyond what the extent Members were already providing (recall > that we easily had a half-dozen at the time; I don't know the count > offhand, but it was well past any normal podling). > > The Incubator may not provide value to certain projects that reach the > pTLP bar (again: some thumbs-up definition of that is needed!), but it > is *very* much required for projects/communities that are not as > familiar with how we like to do things here. > > In this concrete case of Stratos, I personally (and as a voting > Director) have every confidence in trying the pTLP approach. I > outlined some areas that I believe the Board needs before accepting a > pTLP, and so I'm looking forward to this experiment. I think it will > turn out well. I do think we may be setting up some communities for > anger, when the Board chooses to *not* grant pTLP status and refers > the community to the Incubator. I really don't have a good answer > there, especially around the future/obvious direction of "pTLP is only > for the Old Boys Club and other insiders". Sigh. Can't be helped, I > think. > > Anyhow. To the original point: pTLP reporting to the Board is > practically speaking a no-brainer. Podlings generally report direct to > the Board today, minus some intermediary stuff. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
