On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > The incubator PMC does fulfill one important role, that of being a > vettor of releases. It doesn't always do it well, but sometimes it does. > The scenario you describe above would put that responsibility entirely > upon the mentors. > > I would argue though, that it doesn't require a 100+ committee to fulfil > that requirement. Perhaps we could ask the legal affairs committee to > accept a responsibility for vetting first releases. Perhaps needing one > vote for a first release, or for all releases? It would be great to > offer such a service to non-incubating projects that produce new > products also - that knowledge and ability shouldn't be locked into the > incubator PMC.
There could be a much-reduced IPMC that had, as it's only function, to be an additional gate on pTLP releases. For extra credit, it could audit a few releases of ordinary TLPs from time to time. We don't have to retire the name 'IPMC' to shift the model. There is the question of PR/disclaimer to sort out. > > That seems the one missing piece as yet undiscussed in the various > "disband the incubator" discussions. > > Upayavira > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015, at 01:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote: >> Roman, >> >> Thank you for your time as the chair. I eagerly look forward to the >> point >> where there is no need for the IPMC. >> >> John >> >> On Wed Dec 31 2014 at 8:27:54 PM Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Hi! >> > >> > when a honor of the IPMC chair was bestowed on >> > me beginning of 2014 it was crucial that the >> > position remains to be rotated among IPMC members. >> > As an aside: while Marvin felt that the ideal rotation period >> > was 6 month my personal belief was that 12 months >> > makes it long enough to be able to accomplish something, >> > while short enough to still accomplish the goals of a >> > rotating chair. >> > >> > At any rate, with my 12 months almost up, it makes the last >> > day of the year a perfect cut-off point to start talking about >> > transition the Chair position, if it wasn't for one issue: >> > >> > At this point I'm really convinced that what ASF needs is >> > not the next IPMC Chair, but the *last* IPMC Chair. That >> > is to say, I truly feel like the best outcome for everybody >> > involved in Incubation process is if by the end of 2015 IPMC >> > gets completely dissolved. Here's why: >> > >> > First of all, as was pointed out in two other threads by Chris >> > and Benson (see the quotes bellow) the current process lacks >> > the most crucial bit of what Incubation is supposed to be all >> > about: Apache project on training wheels. Instead of teaching >> > our podlings what it really feels to have a responsible PMC >> > and a Chair skilled in the "Apache Way" dealing with the board, >> > we have IPMC. >> > >> > After serving in my current position for almost a year, I'm fully >> > convinced by now, that there's a very fundamental problem >> > with the organization. The existence of IPMC (despite all >> > the goodness that still comes from it) has become a too-convenient >> > of a excuse for *everybody* to play a really nasty shell game with >> > responsibility. >> > >> > While the situation with ASF TLPs varies, at least the system >> > is setup in such a way that there's a very clear accountability >> > What's more important, there's a vested interest from those with >> > authority (PMC, PMC Chair and the Board) to make sure the >> > project is doing the right thing. Presumably, if you're on PMC >> > of a TLP you really don't want the PMC to be dissolved and >> > the project go away. You're not a member of some ethereal >> > "league of extraordinary gentlemen" (aka IPMC) your status >> > is in direct relationship to the livelihood of your project. Without >> > the project there's no status, which is exactly *not* the case >> > with IPMC. A pretty powerful motivator for doing the right thing >> > is clearly lacking. >> > >> > Now, one might say that we don't need to dissolve the IPMC >> > in order to fix this, one might say that something along the >> > lines of original Ross' proposal would do. I would disagree. I think >> > that the only way to send the message or clear responsibility >> > is to make it impossible to be associated with an incubating >> > project in any other way, but being on its PMC. You're either >> > in or out. There's no other place to boost your ASF karma >> > (which, sadly, I've seen around IPMC more than I'd like to). >> > >> > But wait, there's more! This real assignment of responsibility >> > wouldn't just happen at the mentor level, it'll extend all the >> > way to the board. The board will be directly engaged in >> > overseeing the incubating projects and that direct interaction >> > will be as much a part of the Incubation experience as >> > producing releases or growing the community. The scalability >> > of the board is not an issue here. First of all, the board still >> > needs to read all the Incubating reports and moreover >> > if the board doesn't feel scalable enough today, why would >> > all of a sudden scale if all the projects vote on graduation >> > at once tomorrow (and pass!)? If nothing else, this real >> > engagement gives the board a very early indicator of >> > its own scalability issues if any. Early warning are a good >> > thing, not something that needs to be feared. >> > >> > All in all, it feels like direct overseeing of Incubating projects >> > would be a good thing for the poddlings, a good thing for >> > the mentors, a good thing for the board and ultimately >> > the only mature and responsible way of making sure that >> > the project we try to embrace get the best shot of becoming >> > ASF TLPs. At this point, I'm struggling to see any potential >> > negative effects. In fact, if there's one thing I really would >> > like everybody commenting on this thread to focus on it would >> > be that: arguing for potential downsides. >> > >> > With that, I'd like to thank all of my IPMC colleagues for >> > this great opportunity and wish all of you the Happiest >> > New Year! >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Roman. >> > >> > ============== >> > From: Mattmann, Chris A >> > >> > [...snip...] >> > It’s not just the board - again please see the table I’ve listed >> > at the bottom of the wiki. What my proposal does is remove the thinly >> > veiled “IPMC” as the “catch all” which in fact doesn’t catch all. On >> > its 150+ person committee - I supposed there are < 20 active people >> > who keep showing up. I have statistics to prove it (see my active >> > mentors tool I’ve shown) - I have experience having mentored many >> > podlings to prove it; and the mailing threads prove it. So, promote >> > those 20 people to ComDev PMC, promote them to ASF members, promote >> > them however, my guess is that they *care* about the foundation; we >> > want these people helping new projects, and they will continue to >> > help those new projects - along with the board - along with everyone >> > else. >> > [...snip...] >> > =============== >> > From: Benson Margulies >> > >> > [...snip...] >> > Here is where the 'Mentors in the Project' (whether directly reporting >> > to the board or not) leaps up and looks like a great idea to me. The >> > whole goal of incubation is to run an Apache project on training >> > wheels. How does an Apache project run? WIth a chair and PMC members >> > supervising it and _reporting to the board_. The proposal, as I see >> > it, is to tell the champion and other mentors that they, and not the >> > entire IPMC in some nebulous fashion, are the PMC in the PPMC. By the >> > time the podling graduates, their need to have expanded themselves to >> > a larger group. >> > >> > The board may choose to keep the IPMC around to organize and support >> > this process. The board may choose to continue to ask the IPMC to add >> > an extra layer of supervision. But the heart of the proposal is to >> > insist that every podling be nucleated around at least three people >> > who have the experience to operate as a PMC and have volunteered for >> > the responsibility. >> > [...snip...] >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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
