+1 either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not. We need to lose these mixed messages. It seems people are still using the same ten to represent different things.
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Niclas Hedhman<mailto:nic...@hedhman.org> Sent: 3/1/2015 6:38 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: pTLP process amendments Marvin, I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are with the normal graduation resolution. So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling "disappears" and the pTLP is expected to clean up its Incubator presence just like a podling is expected to do once it graduates. // Niclas On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> > >> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be > >> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator > >> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers > ? > >> > > >> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically > the > >> > podlings that you might be referring to. > >> > >> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go. > > > > Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. > If > > the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could > do > > about it :-P > > Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the > only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things > would go > something like this: > > 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution. > 2. Board passes pTLP resolution. > 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling. > > > Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out > > of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm > just > > pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe... > > I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that > most or > all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC > members > for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at > consensus > in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable > that the wider IPMC would stand in the way. > > Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment, > even > if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run > under > the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the > way. > The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where > the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of > friction. > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
