Hi! I think this thread has achieved its goal and the real discussion is now happening on the thread re: Benson's proposal. I couldn't have asked for more -- lets move the real discussion over there. Before we do that, however, I wanted to make a few quick remarks.
First of all, I really appreciate the positive feedback on my tenure expressed on this thread. All I can say is: I tried my best and I couldn't have survived as long as I did without lots of support from my dear colleagues and mentors. Thank you! Re: Upayavira's point on release auditing. I believe this has been adequately answered and incorporated into Benson's proposal. Re: ||| It is my impression that no one is very happy with the current state ||| of the incubation process. On the other hand, I'm sure, from extensive ||| personal experience, that the IPMC's size is a serious impediment to ||| addressing its issues. It's just very, very, hard to reach consensus ||| at this scale. [...] ||| My proposal is to form a select committee. Huge +1 to the idea. Benson, since you proposed it, could you please fork it off into a separate thread? With that: lets the rest of this discussion be conducted around the concrete proposal brought forth by Benson. At this point, I really hope we can make progress there and bring a real plan to the attention of the board soon. This thread is now officially closed ;-) Thanks, Roman. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:26 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
