On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > +1 to everything Ross said below and I monitored that experiment > as well but was unaware of the 3 incidents, etc. > > As for pTLPs and shifting mentorship, etc., I trust Ross’s judgement > but think we need more data on this across a number of projects > before we know definitively what’s the cause of what, etc.
If I was 'in the room' for the last time around, I seem to have forgotten. If I volunteered to write something, gosh I'm sorry and please do call me out here. Meanwhile: I think that there's some complexity here: At one extreme, consider 5 members with a demonstrable track record on IP issues and supervision who want to launch a new project (for example, a proposed VP who has been a success as a project VP on some other project(s)). Regardless of anything else, I suspect that they could go to the board, propose to launch a TLP directly, and have a pretty good chance of the board approving it. That's not really what pTLP is about, though. pTLP says, 'here we have some people who are willing to serve as the supervision structure of a new TLP but expect to fade away; they aren't necessarily planning to be write any code. They are members, but, hmm, members come in all sorts of different levels of experience with the issues faced by new projects." With all respect to ChrisM on the subject of letting the IPMC itself fade away, I read Ross' statement as pointing out that this situation seems to need some work done that the board doesn't want to do for itself. The board might want, gee, some committee, to help vet proposals, and perhaps to help keep an eye on them once they are running. That's what I meant by wondering 'how much (p) does the board want?' (Aside, as the number of projects grows and grows, it seems to me that the board might need some help supervising all the regular projects.) This brings me back to my idea of a wiki page. If the board is looking for a 'pTLP' to be more self-governing than a 'podling' but still have the IPMC accept some sort of responsibility for it, we need to write down the boundaries as part of proposing to the board. If NiFi wants to try this, I'm still happy to write the 'simple' proposal to the board, and wait upon the board's desires. If the board members in this thread feel that writing the simple proposal is a waste of time and energy, I won't write it. None of this stops the IPMC itself from shifting policy, experimentally, to require Mentors to act as PPMC members. I think I've used my quote of characters for the year on this subject. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
