+1 thanks Benson, totally agree. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) ><chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >> Thanks Benson - I would suggest using the Incubator wiki if you >> need one (but the point about there not being a Board wiki - >>interesting, >> would be nice to have one). >> >> At the end of the day the resolution would look like a typical board >> resolution after Incubator graduation e.g., “Create Apache X”, so >> it would be summarized as you mention in point #3 below. > >Chris, > >I agree that the simplest model of (p)TLP hasn't much of a (p): it >would be a normal resolution, and we'll be off to the races. I plan, >if the Nifi group is game, to send mail to the board offering that >option, and then back off to a more complex proposal if the board >wants more (p) -- like PR restrictions, or some sort of policy on how >the initial podling group gets incorporated into the PMC. > >--benson > > >> >> Cheers and good luck. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Chief Architect >> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> >> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> >> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM >> To: "general@incubator apache. org" <general@incubator.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >> >>>I plan to: >>> >>>1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. >>>Can't >>>expect IRB approval without it. >>> >>>2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details >>>to >>>worry over. Any suggestions about where to put it? There in no board >>>wiki. >>>Is there? >>> >>>3. Submit a board resolution when I think there is a consensus. >>>On Dec 30, 2014 12:24 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" < >>>chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> Marvin, I completely agree with you - to sum it up - my take on your >>>>point >>>> that Apache has a lot of information and guidelines for new podlings >>>> that is somewhat inconsistently brought down to new generations and >>>> those after them of incoming projects. Have a mentor that’s a stickler >>>> for release candidates - you will see projects come out believing that >>>> is the end-all be-all for Apache (“gah, Apache is the communist >>>>release >>>> foundation!”). Have a mentor that is a stickler for diversity on >>>>incoming >>>> projects, podlings will come out believing there is some rule that a >>>> committee can’t have a majority of contributors from a single >>>>organization >>>> (“Ahh _that_ company is taking over an _Apache_ project! Gasp!”). Have >>>> a mentor that’s a stickler for adding anyone that drops by on the >>>>mailing >>>> list that says hi (ahem..ducks) you’ll have podlings coming in and new >>>> committees believing in low barriers to committership and PMCship. >>>> >>>> Regardless the above is the ethos of Apache and by and far, it will >>>>exist, >>>> IPMC or not. There is no reason that the current f_active(IPMC) = >>>>[some >>>> # less than 20] couldn’t simply still exist either in official >>>>committee >>>> form (its own; or on the ComDev PMC), and continue to do the same >>>>thing. >>>> It’s my belief that the genetic makeup of active IPMC members includes >>>> a few mentors cut from each of the important incoming new project >>>>areas >>>> that are important to pass down - legal, release review, community and >>>> participation, etc - and that we should as best as possible try and >>>> have a set of 3 that represents some nice representative cross section >>>>of >>>> those skills for the new projects. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from: >>>> >>>> 1. Making ASF members out of anyone that’s part of that active IPMC >>>> list that’s not already a member >>>> 2. Having those ASF members vote in new board members that represent >>>> their views and ethos (including themselves as new board members) >>>> 3. Having those board members be part of checks and bounds to *care* >>>> and review these projects part of our foundation >>>> >>>> Or some subset of the above. >>>> >>>> My point being - IPMC or not - the things you cite below as important >>>> will still exist, since this foundation and its people will, hopefully >>>> for the next 50+ years. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >>>> Chief Architect >>>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >>>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >>>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov >>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> >>>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" >>>><general@incubator.apache.org> >>>> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 8:03 AM >>>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> >>>> Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP >>>> >>>> >On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) >>>> ><chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>>> >> The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the >>>> >> mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to >>>>identify >>>> >> (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. >>>> > >>>> >I am skeptical that Apache policies will be applied evenly under >>>>such a >>>> >regime. For example, release candidates routinely make it to the >>>>full >>>> >IPMC >>>> >vote with binary dependencies embedded in source. Regardless of >>>>intent, >>>> >removing final review by the wider IPMC will have the effect of >>>> >liberalizing >>>> >the policy on bundled binary dependencies for those pTLPs who do not >>>> >count any >>>> >sticklers among their Mentors. >>>> > >>>> >Rather than change effective release policy for a minority through >>>> >administrative laxity, the Board should grapple with the full >>>> >implications of >>>> >changing it explicitly for everyone. (Yes, that will turn a huge, >>>>gory >>>> >fight >>>> >considering liability, etc.) >>>> > >>>> >Atomizing the IPMC will also yield inconsistency in other areas where >>>> >there is >>>> >either confusion or honest disagreement among the Membership as to >>>>what >>>> >our >>>> >policies are, such as provenance documentation requirements for >>>> >contributions >>>> >arriving via Github, or whether PMC chairs are "special". >>>> > >>>> >Nevertheless, +1 to move forward with the "pTLP experiment" (whatever >>>>that >>>> >means). Odds are that any given pTLP will work out OK, especially if >>>>they >>>> >land one of our better Mentors. But when one messes up, maybe we'll >>>>get a >>>> >clarifying post-mortem with the Board in the hot seat and the >>>>Incubator >>>> >unavailable as a convenient scapegoat. >>>> > >>>> >No matter how much progress the Incubator makes, people will continue >>>>to >>>> >hate >>>> >on it because it's a teacher and front-line enforcer of contentious >>>>and >>>> >frustratingly complex Foundation policies. I'm not sure that's a >>>>solvable >>>> >problem, because it seems that The Apache Way inherently produces >>>> >sprawling, >>>> >incoherent policy and policy documentation. >>>> > >>>> >Marvin Humphrey >>>> > >>>> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >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 > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
