On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff >> notes are as follows... > > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on. > >> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for >> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as >> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into >> the existing ASF infra.... > > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would > suggest > > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based > on these podlings
I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the podling's case. Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is okay. > > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at > the board / infra level. Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you require" if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay. The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra doesn't have binding votes there :) My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs. With regards, Daniel. > > -Bertrand > > [1] > https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt > for example > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
