That first sentence still doesn't parse, sorry ... I should have said I don't like the idea of the board taking responsibility. I have no problem with it receiving reports directly.
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 15 Jun 2013 07:55, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > 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 >> >>
