Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)

[Daniel Spicar]

Technically this release candidate is almost identical to RC4. I did a
quick test and build on a clean VM. Everything looks fine.

+1

Daniel

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Daniel Shahaf]

Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 20:20:26 -0800:
> Thanks Christian.
> 
> I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and 
> Joe, and the comments from Benson and others.
> 
> I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that 
> I don't intend to be in it very long as I don't intend for it to exist
> much longer. Should I be elected I will immediately move to 
> a proposal/resolution phase and recommendation to the board
> to dissolve the Incubator PMC, and to ratify the elements of my
> proposal.

Which, for the archives, is
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201201.mbox/<25c5ae77-6949-493e-bbd5-eb20869a2...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
right?


> 
> I realize that Rome wasn't built in a day, but I'm optimistic
> that it can be built not longer after that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> 
> > We have already 2 good nominations for the IPMC chair role, Noel and Benson.
> > 
> > I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC
> > chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings
> > in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Christian
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Noel J. Bergman  wrote:
> >> This belongs on general@ ...
> >> 
> >> A call for nominations for Incubator PMC Chair was started on the private@
> >> list.  The nomination process should be open to the Incubator community.
> >> 
> >>--- Noel
> >> 
> >> -Original Message-
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:30
> >> To: priv...@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: NOMINATIONS for IPMC Chair
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I nominate __, assuming he is willing and able to handle 
> >> the
> >> workload
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > http://www.grobmeier.de
> > https://www.timeandbill.de
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> 
> 
> ++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++
> 
> 
> -
> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator

[Maurizio Cucchiara]

Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my contribution.
So I'm going to take the freedom to add myself to the initial committers
list (obviously if there are no objection)

Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+  :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin:http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara

Maurizio Cucchiara


On 3 February 2012 08:46, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:

> Hi gents,
> Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is interested
> in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of first Open
> Source projects in this field?
>
> Moreover, is there any ASF committer wanting to contribute as initial
> committer?
>
> TIA.
> Regards.
>
>
> On 31/01/2012 10:14, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi all guys,
>>
>> I would like to propose Syncope, an Open Source system for managing
>> identities in enterprise environments, implemented in JEE technology,
>> originally developed by Tirasa, an Italian IT company, to be an Apache
>> Incubator project.
>> The goal for Syncope is to become the reference implementation for
>> Open Source Identity Management, a middleware area in which there are
>> very few and not yet mature Open Source solutions available.
>>
>> Here's a link to the proposal in the Incubator wiki[1] where we
>> started collecting all needed info.
>>
>> As you will note, the list of mentors is in need of some volunteers,
>> so if you find this interesting, feel free to sign up or let us know
>> you are interested :).
>>
>> Hope to read from you soon, thanks in advance and have a nice day!
>> All the best,
>> Simo
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://wiki.apache.org/**incubator/SyncopeProposal
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~**simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.**livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/**simonetripodi 
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Apache Cocoon Committer and PMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~**ilgrosso/
>
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> general-help@incubator.apache.**org
>
>

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 wrote:
>...
> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
> in 6 months (or sooner, if required?) IOW, we accept my proposal asi-is.
> Then in 6 months, we'll see how it's working out, and I'll tell you what,
> if we need an Incubation VP then, I'll be all for it, and even willing to sign
> up for it.

With my Director hat on, I would vote to keep the Incubator VP and
only eliminate it when it is demonstrated to be of no value. As I
mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that
require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the
podling-TLP or the Board. The Board has enough to do without trying to
*also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press,
etc.

Cheers,
-g

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)

[Reto Bachmann-Gmür]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür 
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1
> in
> > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE
> and
> > license files. Also the source distribution contained the sources of
> modules
> > that are not part of the release profile. The new release candidate fixes
> > these issues, for that it provides a new module containing the assembly
> > descriptor that replicates the directory structure excluding modules not
> in
> > the release profile.
> >
> > This is now the fifth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the
> modules in
> > the release profile.
> >
> > A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb launcher
> > are available with their signatures at:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201202/
> >
> > In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
>
> I've had a look and the LICENSE file in the binary distribution looks
> good now. The binary distribution is missing the NOTICE file though.
>

I see that the with the change to the generated NOTICE files the binary
assembly no longer contains the file. I've created CLEREZZA-682 to address
this, can we proceed with the release anyway or is this a blocker? (just
releasing the source version would be fine as well, imho)

>
> The source distribution has a README.txt which says ""This is a source
> distribution containing different modules to which different notices
> from copyright holders apply, see the NOTICE files in the root folders
> of the individual modules." That might be better to also mention
> licensing, perhaps "...different licenses and notices...see the
> LICENSE and NOTICE files...", i'd probably still vote for it with the
> text as it is though.
>
I have no problem changing this for the future, but I would like to remark
that the current information on copyrights and licenses seems more explicit
than the graduated apache project I looked at (sling and servicemix).


>
> Also remember still my comment from the previous thread - not everyone
> here will be happy with source license doc like this and not all in
> the top LICENSE file so pester people like your mentors to make sure
> you'll get the necessary votes.
>

While our champion participated in the discussion, unfortunately I got no
feedback from our mentors (sent mail on private list and added them
individually as recipient to the last release thread). But weith Tommaso we
had already an IPMC member vote and I understood you and Bertrand that you
would support a release after the licensing/notice issues have been fixed.

The main question seem to me if we can go on with the vote despite the
missing notice in the binary release candidate and if yes if we should
exclude the binary from this candidate (and decide only on releasing the
source distro).

Cheers,
Reto


>
>  ...ant
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Ross Gardler]

On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
>> The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
>> the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
>> whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller
>> groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to
>> the Board.
>>
>> Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that
>> something we can all get behind?

I have *not* had time to digest this thread yet. So my comments below
are based on the above re-statement of the abstract idea.

I promised some details about my past experiences leading a team to
provide mentoring to over 600 UK institutions with over 1000 projects
active at any one time (note that does not mean we had hands on
activity with all those projects, in fact not all of them were
software development projects, in reality we handled hundreds not
thousands, but then we were only 5 people, only one of which knew real
open development and only one other was technical). Unfortunately I
have not had the time to get this down into a sensible post and the
discussions here have been far too fast moving for me to keep up
during this busy time outside the ASF.

That being said, the approach I eventually took in that previous
activity was to encourage individuals to own "verticals", that is
areas of work that the individual was interested in. Somewhere where
they could get direct personal benefit from being involved with these
projects.

Where the individuals doing this work cared about the work they were
doing (i.e. it wasn't "just" a job) this strategy worked very well.

We developed a defined support plan. This provided models by which we
could evaluate the community progress of the project and, more
importantly, identified where the weakest points were. This helped
guide the allocation of community focused resources within the
projects and their mentors. I've never introduced this here because I
believe volunteers would find the idea of "measuring" (or worse being
measured) distasteful. Indeed we never told the projects of the
results of their evaluation, or even that we were doing them for this
reason. We just used them as internal tools.

Here in the ASF I don't think there is such a strong need for these
tools. In principle our mentors should know what to focus on next,
they shouldn't need the tool, they have personal experience.
Nevertheless, as the incubator has grown we have found that
differences of opinion about the best way to do things result in very
confused messages for our podlings. Whilst I don't think using a
formal evaluation tool is a good idea here, I do think documentation
of the mentoring process around the kind of evaluations we did would
be a good idea. We don't need all projects applying guidelines in
exactly the same way, but we do need some consistency in the generic
advice we give podlings. It is for this reason I asked (elsewhere) for
the nominees for the PMC chair to describe how they would like to work
with ComDev moving forwards. I would be happy for ComDev to help in
this regard, I have not spoken to the ComDev PMC as I still don't have
the concise statement of intent that I requested.

Ross

>
> Completing such a task will be a lot of work, and who knows what complications
> and disagreements lie ahead?  We have an incremental solution in front of us
> which mitigates some of our most pressing problems: the measured expansion of
> Joe Schaefer's successful "experiment" to add PPMC Members who have
> demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Apache Way to the IPMC.
>
> I don't support this boil-the-ocean revamp if it blocks the less ambitious
> reforms.  An indefinite period where release votes continue to drag on for
> weeks is unacceptable.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator

[Francesco Chicchiriccò]

On 03/02/2012 10:35, Maurizio Cucchiara wrote:

Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my contribution.
So I'm going to take the freedom to add myself to the initial committers
list (obviously if there are no objection)


Maurizio,
your contribution is more than welcome! I've added your name in the 
proposal.


Thanks!


On 3 February 2012 08:46, Francesco Chicchiriccòwrote:


Hi gents,
Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is interested
in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of first Open
Source projects in this field?

Moreover, is there any ASF committer wanting to contribute as initial
committer?

TIA.
Regards.


On 31/01/2012 10:14, Simone Tripodi wrote:


Hi all guys,

I would like to propose Syncope, an Open Source system for managing
identities in enterprise environments, implemented in JEE technology,
originally developed by Tirasa, an Italian IT company, to be an Apache
Incubator project.
The goal for Syncope is to become the reference implementation for
Open Source Identity Management, a middleware area in which there are
very few and not yet mature Open Source solutions available.

Here's a link to the proposal in the Incubator wiki[1] where we
started collecting all needed info.

As you will note, the list of mentors is in need of some volunteers,
so if you find this interesting, feel free to sign up or let us know
you are interested :).

Hope to read from you soon, thanks in advance and have a nice day!
All the best,
Simo

[1] 
http://wiki.apache.org/**incubator/SyncopeProposal

http://people.apache.org/~**simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.**livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/**simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/

--
Francesco Chicchiriccò

Apache Cocoon Committer and PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Greg Stein]

Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :)  We might want to break
> this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
>
> Anyways, just one commment;
>
> On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> I can easily see a small group of
>>> people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate.
>>> I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution
>>> to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be
>>> handled by the TLP itself by graduation time)
>>
>> I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me,
>> but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared
>> to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other
>> ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be
>> on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that
>> those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys
>> are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that
>> organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of
>> ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help
>> shepherd them in just the way it works today.
>
> You mention also "No need for the position anymore. Just another report to
> have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the
> board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1."
>
> What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the
> middle man.  Think of this VP as the expediter.  The one who takes a whole
> stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to
> "Fill this in, and we'll submit these things".
>
> This VP would not be in the middle.  They would be on the sideline.  If
> the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then
> marvelous.  If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution
> in their lives, the VP is there to assist.
>
> The VP keeps the "files" on process.  Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best
> Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter
> "Your proposal should state" formal documentation.  Think in terms of
> ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks.  They don't stand 'over' any
> committee.  They gather, define and communicate process.  That is the
> role of VP, Project Incubation.  Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs)
> assume the *responsibility* for following those processes.  Not a traffic
> cop, but a tourist guide.
>
> It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just
> as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring
> to and caring for the projects in the Attic.  Sure, ComDev will have some
> good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement.
> But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the
> board's feedback.  If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP
> would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before
> the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting.
>
> So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether
> it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation.  It can't be left
> in a hundred different hands to drop.
>
>
> -
> 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

Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)

[Tommaso Teofili]

2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür 

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür 
> > wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding
> +1
> > in
> > > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE
> > and
> > > license files. Also the source distribution contained the sources of
> > modules
> > > that are not part of the release profile. The new release candidate
> fixes
> > > these issues, for that it provides a new module containing the assembly
> > > descriptor that replicates the directory structure excluding modules
> not
> > in
> > > the release profile.
> > >
> > > This is now the fifth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the
> > modules in
> > > the release profile.
> > >
> > > A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb
> launcher
> > > are available with their signatures at:
> > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201202/
> > >
> > > In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Reto
> >
> > I've had a look and the LICENSE file in the binary distribution looks
> > good now. The binary distribution is missing the NOTICE file though.
> >
>
> I see that the with the change to the generated NOTICE files the binary
> assembly no longer contains the file. I've created CLEREZZA-682 to address
> this, can we proceed with the release anyway or is this a blocker? (just
> releasing the source version would be fine as well, imho)


> >
> > The source distribution has a README.txt which says ""This is a source
> > distribution containing different modules to which different notices
> > from copyright holders apply, see the NOTICE files in the root folders
> > of the individual modules." That might be better to also mention
> > licensing, perhaps "...different licenses and notices...see the
> > LICENSE and NOTICE files...", i'd probably still vote for it with the
> > text as it is though.
> >
> I have no problem changing this for the future, but I would like to remark
> that the current information on copyrights and licenses seems more explicit
> than the graduated apache project I looked at (sling and servicemix).
>
>
> >
> > Also remember still my comment from the previous thread - not everyone
> > here will be happy with source license doc like this and not all in
> > the top LICENSE file so pester people like your mentors to make sure
> > you'll get the necessary votes.
> >
>
> While our champion participated in the discussion, unfortunately I got no
> feedback from our mentors (sent mail on private list and added them
> individually as recipient to the last release thread). But weith Tommaso we
> had already an IPMC member vote and I understood you and Bertrand that you
> would support a release after the licensing/notice issues have been fixed.
>
> The main question seem to me if we can go on with the vote despite the
> missing notice in the binary release candidate and if yes if we should
> exclude the binary from this candidate (and decide only on releasing the
> source distro).
>
>
I think the best option would be to fix the NOTICE in binary, fire a new RC
and release the binary stuff too because releasing only the source
package, in my opinion, would be not that convenient in terms of using
Apache Clerezza as devs couldn't take the binary neither from ASF mirrors
nor from Maven Central.
WDYT?

Tommaso



> Cheers,
> Reto
>
>
> >
> >  ...ant
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [WITHDRAW][VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)

[Reto Bachmann-Gmür]

Ok, thanks.
So I withdraw this release candidate, address CLEREZZA-682 and will propose
RC6 asap.

Reto

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:

> 2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür 
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder  wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding
> > +1
> > > in
> > > > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect
> NOTICE
> > > and
> > > > license files. Also the source distribution contained the sources of
> > > modules
> > > > that are not part of the release profile. The new release candidate
> > fixes
> > > > these issues, for that it provides a new module containing the
> assembly
> > > > descriptor that replicates the directory structure excluding modules
> > not
> > > in
> > > > the release profile.
> > > >
> > > > This is now the fifth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the
> > > modules in
> > > > the release profile.
> > > >
> > > > A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb
> > launcher
> > > > are available with their signatures at:
> > > >
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201202/
> > > >
> > > > In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Reto
> > >
> > > I've had a look and the LICENSE file in the binary distribution looks
> > > good now. The binary distribution is missing the NOTICE file though.
> > >
> >
> > I see that the with the change to the generated NOTICE files the binary
> > assembly no longer contains the file. I've created CLEREZZA-682 to
> address
> > this, can we proceed with the release anyway or is this a blocker? (just
> > releasing the source version would be fine as well, imho)
>
>
> > >
> > > The source distribution has a README.txt which says ""This is a source
> > > distribution containing different modules to which different notices
> > > from copyright holders apply, see the NOTICE files in the root folders
> > > of the individual modules." That might be better to also mention
> > > licensing, perhaps "...different licenses and notices...see the
> > > LICENSE and NOTICE files...", i'd probably still vote for it with the
> > > text as it is though.
> > >
> > I have no problem changing this for the future, but I would like to
> remark
> > that the current information on copyrights and licenses seems more
> explicit
> > than the graduated apache project I looked at (sling and servicemix).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Also remember still my comment from the previous thread - not everyone
> > > here will be happy with source license doc like this and not all in
> > > the top LICENSE file so pester people like your mentors to make sure
> > > you'll get the necessary votes.
> > >
> >
> > While our champion participated in the discussion, unfortunately I got no
> > feedback from our mentors (sent mail on private list and added them
> > individually as recipient to the last release thread). But weith Tommaso
> we
> > had already an IPMC member vote and I understood you and Bertrand that
> you
> > would support a release after the licensing/notice issues have been
> fixed.
> >
> > The main question seem to me if we can go on with the vote despite the
> > missing notice in the binary release candidate and if yes if we should
> > exclude the binary from this candidate (and decide only on releasing the
> > source distro).
> >
> >
> I think the best option would be to fix the NOTICE in binary, fire a new RC
> and release the binary stuff too because releasing only the source
> package, in my opinion, would be not that convenient in terms of using
> Apache Clerezza as devs couldn't take the binary neither from ASF mirrors
> nor from Maven Central.
> WDYT?
>
> Tommaso
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
> >
> > >
> > >  ...ant
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi Chris,

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 wrote:
> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
> proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve
> the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my
> proposal...

So it seems like there's a good proposal of yours, buried in the way
too many (for my own taste) tl:dr emails here recently.

Would you mind putting your proposal at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator to make it easier to discuss and act
on?

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Benson Margulies]

It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
than 2 months.

A trial balloon: the board appoints Chris to run a PMC to set this up
and try it out -- with the intention of being a short-lived
phenomenon. Meanwhile, Noel or I or some other nominee continue to
make the best of the incubator as we have it, including the gradual
modifications pushed by Sam and Joe. If the board eventually decides
that the ipmc is entirely obviated by the membership and comdev, we'll
hire a bagpiper for the closing ceremony. If it turns out that a small
IPMC providing support and assistance to 'probationary projects' is
desired, we'll go on a diet.

I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
and transition the existing clutch. While this can't avoid ending up
as electioneering, I don't think it a good idea to simply appoint an
IPMC chairman who is focussed like a laser beam on this restructuring
to the exclusion of making the best of what we're currently doing.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Request to join IPMC

[Christian Grobmeier]

Hello Raymond,

i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
overseen here.

Besides that, you are right, as a Member you can join on request and
yes, you need to join the IPMC to mentor a project. It is only a
formality to add you to the ipmc.

Cheers
Christian

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Raymond Feng  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm an Apache member and committers of a few Apache projects. As one of the 
> mentors from the Amber (incubation) project retired, I expressed my interest 
> to mentor the project and the responses from the community seem to be 
> positive. My understanding is that I need to join IPMC so that I can become a 
> mentor.
>
> Can I request to join IPMC?
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> On Jan 19, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> no objections from my side, nice to see people stepping up!
>> all the best,
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Raymond Feng  wrote:
>>> I can help mentor the project if necessary.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 I'd like to step down as mentor for Amber. I'm not able to fulfill my
 duties and also failed to finish the IP clearance issue.

 There are two other active committers who may help mentoring: Tommaso
 Teofili (IPMC) and Simone Tripodi (Apache member). Also Raymond Feng
 (Apache member) shows interest in Amber.

 All the best,
 Stefan
>>>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Ross Gardler]

On 3 February 2012 12:33, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
>> proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve
>> the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my
>> proposal...
>
> So it seems like there's a good proposal of yours, buried in the way
> too many (for my own taste) tl:dr emails here recently.
>
> Would you mind putting your proposal at
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator to make it easier to discuss and act
> on?

+1000 I very much doubt I'm the only one desperately trying to find
the time to keep up with this. Changing the chair based on what sounds
like a radical change in policy should not be, and does not need to
be, done in a hurry.

Ross

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Sam Ruby]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
>>...
>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
>> in 6 months (or sooner, if required?) IOW, we accept my proposal asi-is.
>> Then in 6 months, we'll see how it's working out, and I'll tell you what,
>> if we need an Incubation VP then, I'll be all for it, and even willing to 
>> sign
>> up for it.
>
> With my Director hat on, I would vote to keep the Incubator VP and
> only eliminate it when it is demonstrated to be of no value. As I
> mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that
> require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the
> podling-TLP or the Board. The Board has enough to do without trying to
> *also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press,
> etc.

With my Director's hat on, I certainly wouldn't dismiss the proposal
out of hand.

As Bill pointed out previously, the amount of lines in the monthly
board agendas won't materially change.  What I care most about is
addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
which feedback can be directed for each report.

Podlings typically have multiple ASF members assigned to them (three
is not an atypical number).  I believe that the responsibility for
verifying release processes, check on podling branding and press is
already assigned to these members.  If a podling (with the support of
the mentors) votes to assign a non ASF-member as the chair, I am OK
with that too as long as there are still plenty enough people
monitoring the development of the podling.

I'll name three concerns / items to be addressed:

First, having the board vote on the creation of each podling is a bit
too heavy weight.  I for one would prefer that that continue to be
delegated.

Second, the board is not the appropriate vehicle for fine tuning /
micro-managing individual projects, much less podlings.  A podling
that consistently fails to report or fails to address issues
identified by the board should expect one or more of: a new chair,
people added or removed from the committee, of for the committee to be
dissolved entirely.  Having a supportive resource (whether that
resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not)
remains important.

Third, we started to move towards a point where having commit access
to a podling means commit access to all the incubator.  The proposal
will need to cover how that is either going to change or how that
would be expected to work.

> Cheers,
> -g

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Jim Jagielski]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:58 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc
> 
> Shane [check]
> Doug [check]
> Roy [no]
> Jim [check]
> Brett [check]
> Larry [no]
> Sam [check]
> Greg [check]
> 
> So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the Incubator PMC, and
> a good chance they are here now, and reading this.
> 
> What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board 
> hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now 
> rather than have to wait. 

I respectfully decline to commit one way or another, due
to the possibility of it unduly (possibly) swaying things
one way or another. I'd prefer the discussion to continue,
unfettered, and all of a sudden having director's plop
in their opinions will, almost for sure, affect that.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Mentors as the core of the IPMC

[Jim Jagielski]

One thing I would like to be bantered about:

Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.

Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or is moot?
Justify your decision.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Sam Ruby]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
> tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
> than 2 months.
>
> A trial balloon: the board appoints Chris to run a PMC to set this up
> and try it out -- with the intention of being a short-lived
> phenomenon. Meanwhile, Noel or I or some other nominee continue to
> make the best of the incubator as we have it, including the gradual
> modifications pushed by Sam and Joe. If the board eventually decides
> that the ipmc is entirely obviated by the membership and comdev, we'll
> hire a bagpiper for the closing ceremony. If it turns out that a small
> IPMC providing support and assistance to 'probationary projects' is
> desired, we'll go on a diet.
>
> I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
> some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
> and transition the existing clutch. While this can't avoid ending up
> as electioneering, I don't think it a good idea to simply appoint an
> IPMC chairman who is focussed like a laser beam on this restructuring
> to the exclusion of making the best of what we're currently doing.

This makes sense to me.  Podlings are an obvious granularity to try out this.

Over a period of years we dissolved Jakarta.  We started by graduating
Ant and Tomcat to be TLPs.  This was once a new concept.  Over time,
less and less remained under the umbrella.

Selecting individual podlings that seem best equipped to try out the
new experiment would be a reasonable way to proceed.

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Mentors as the core of the IPMC

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> ...Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier

One *active* mentor is good enough for most podlings, but expecting
the mentor to be always available is not realistic, so having
backup(s) is often needed. That could be IPMC members though, if we
decide to go back to one mentor per podling.

Larger podlings where many new people come into Apache (like
openoffice, flex) are better off with several mentors that can share
the high load that those represent, at least when starting up.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC6)

[Reto Bachmann-Gmür]

Hello,

As announced aerlier today I've created a new distribution addressing the
two issues with RC5. The assembly for the binary distribution has been
changed to put a copy of the notice in the distribution directory. The
readme has been adapted as suggested by Ant. As this candidate addresses
issues brought forward on the general mailing list while otherwise being
nearly identical to the previous two candidates I'm posting this call for
vote both on the general and clerezza mailing list.

This is now the sixth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the modules
in the release profile.

A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb launcher
are available with their signatures at:

http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-RC6/

In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.

Cheers,
Reto

Re: Mentors as the core of the IPMC

[ant elder]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> One thing I would like to be bantered about:
>
> Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
>
> Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or is moot?
> Justify your decision.
>

A problem with multiple mentors is that with no single person
responsible its too easy for no one to do any mentoring because they
all leave the work for the others to do. The recent change to the
Champion role (what happened with that?) was an attempt to help fix
that.

A problem with less than three active mentors is that it can sometimes
be hard to get three release votes. Even with three mentors there are
lots of examples where things like releases are not being taught or
vetted. Making an ASF release really isn't that hard but we still
often get RC votes on general@ with quite basic licensing flaws which
makes you wonder if the mentors have done anything at all to help the
poddling learn how to make a release.

Presently I'd probably lean towards a single mentor being better and
to find some better way of poddlings learning release requirements and
then more quickly getting their own binding votes.

   ...ant

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Mentors as the core of the IPMC

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM, ant elder  wrote:
>... A problem with multiple mentors is that with no single person
> responsible its too easy for no one to do any mentoring because they
> all leave the work for the others to do. The recent change to the
> Champion role (what happened with that?) was an attempt to help fix
> that

http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion
is up to date w.r.t that change.

I have it on my list to follow up with podlings so that each of them
nominates their champion, but ENOTIME recently - if someone wants to
pick that up, feel free.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Greg Stein]

On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Benson,
>
> I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
> proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve
> the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my
> proposal. I realize there are INFRA impacts to this; and other nitty
> gritty details -- I'm  willing to help where I can with those and to
facilitate
> the others.

I think it will be much longer than that. Incremental and reversible steps
are most desirable. Thus, I would see the Board promoting just a few
podlings to podling-TLP status, and see how that goes for a couple
quarters. The Incubator would stick around during that test, continuing
with the vast majority of podlings.

Speaking as a Director, that would be my preferred approach. I obviously
can't speak for the others, but I would argue against a total, immediate
deconstruction.

Cheers,
-g

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Daniel,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:

> Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 20:20:26 -0800:
>> Thanks Christian.
>> 
>> I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and 
>> Joe, and the comments from Benson and others.
>> 
>> I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that 
>> I don't intend to be in it very long as I don't intend for it to exist
>> much longer. Should I be elected I will immediately move to 
>> a proposal/resolution phase and recommendation to the board
>> to dissolve the Incubator PMC, and to ratify the elements of my
>> proposal.
> 
> Which, for the archives, is
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201201.mbox/<25c5ae77-6949-493e-bbd5-eb20869a2...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> right?

Yep.

Cheers,
Chris

> 
> 
>> 
>> I realize that Rome wasn't built in a day, but I'm optimistic
>> that it can be built not longer after that.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> 
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> 
>>> We have already 2 good nominations for the IPMC chair role, Noel and Benson.
>>> 
>>> I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC
>>> chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings
>>> in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Christian
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Noel J. Bergman  wrote:
 This belongs on general@ ...
 
 A call for nominations for Incubator PMC Chair was started on the private@
 list.  The nomination process should be open to the Incubator community.
 
   --- Noel
 
 -Original Message-
 Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:30
 To: priv...@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: NOMINATIONS for IPMC Chair
 
 
 I nominate __, assuming he is willing and able to handle 
 the
 workload
 
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
>> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Bertrand,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
>> proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve
>> the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my
>> proposal...
> 
> So it seems like there's a good proposal of yours, buried in the way
> too many (for my own taste) tl:dr emails here recently.
> 
> Would you mind putting your proposal at
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator to make it easier to discuss and act
> on?

Absolutely. I'll drop it in there shortly. 

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Request to join IPMC

[Raymond Feng]

Thanks, Christian.

Raymond Feng
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier  wrote:

> Hello Raymond,
> 
> i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
> much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
> overseen here.
> 
> Besides that, you are right, as a Member you can join on request and
> yes, you need to join the IPMC to mentor a project. It is only a
> formality to add you to the ipmc.
> 
> Cheers
> Christian
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Raymond Feng  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm an Apache member and committers of a few Apache projects. As one of the 
>> mentors from the Amber (incubation) project retired, I expressed my interest 
>> to mentor the project and the responses from the community seem to be 
>> positive. My understanding is that I need to join IPMC so that I can become 
>> a mentor.
>> 
>> Can I request to join IPMC?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>> 
>> On Jan 19, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> 
>>> no objections from my side, nice to see people stepping up!
>>> all the best,
>>> -Simo
>>> 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Raymond Feng  wrote:
 I can help mentor the project if necessary.
 
 Thanks,
 Raymond
 
 On Jan 15, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
 
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to step down as mentor for Amber. I'm not able to fulfill my
> duties and also failed to finish the IP clearance issue.
> 
> There are two other active committers who may help mentoring: Tommaso
> Teofili (IPMC) and Simone Tripodi (Apache member). Also Raymond Feng
> (Apache member) shows interest in Amber.
> 
> All the best,
> Stefan
 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
> 
> -
> 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

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Bertrand,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
>> proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve
>> the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my
>> proposal...
> 
> So it seems like there's a good proposal of yours, buried in the way
> too many (for my own taste) tl:dr emails here recently.
> 
> Would you mind putting your proposal at
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator to make it easier to discuss and act
> on?

No probs. Done!

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposa

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Greg,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
>> ...
>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
>> in 6 months (or sooner, if required?) IOW, we accept my proposal asi-is.
>> Then in 6 months, we'll see how it's working out, and I'll tell you what,
>> if we need an Incubation VP then, I'll be all for it, and even willing to 
>> sign
>> up for it.
> 
> With my Director hat on, I would vote to keep the Incubator VP and
> only eliminate it when it is demonstrated to be of no value.

What in my proposal *doesn't* demonstrate that it's time to get rid of the VP?
I believe I've elaborated quite laboriously over the past week 
why I think the VP, Incubator position has served its purpose, just
like other VP positions that we've retired over time.

Can you address specific points in 
my proposal and tell me what I'm missing to demonstrate that
we don't need the Incubator VP and the IPMC anymore?

I'd argue that the following demonstrates that we don't need it, 
which for the record, are points in my original email thread and 
now proposal here:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal

1. Podlings will be projects. They will have a VP. That's the
interface between the board and the project, just like any other
project.

2. Why add another officer position (or in this case, keep one), 
when we don't have met officer positions that "manage"
the reporting of standard TLPs (or sets of them) to the board? 
We've have several conversations over the years, e.g., in search, 
or in database communities here at Apache, that run something
like this:

"Oh, we have these sets of projects that are related, let's create a
meta committee that will [wrangle] them together, and then report
out on their status, share MLs, etc. etc."

Each and every time the above is presented, the argument against 
(besides maintaining the status quo, which I honestly think is being
pushed here) is that there is no need for such a meta committee 
(and by transitivity) a meta VP role. That's what the Incubator VP
is. A meta VP. We don't need the role.


> As I
> mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that
> require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the
> podling-TLP

I don't agree with this. It's shifted to the project TLP. That's OK. 
Why is this not?

> or the Board.

I agree with this.

> The Board has enough to do without trying to
> *also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press,
> etc.

You guys don't do that for projects, why would you do it in this case?

To summarize in a sentence my proposal:

"Get rid of the Incubator PMC, its VP, etc and just start treating incoming
projects like Apache projects, day 1."

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hey Greg,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.

I was in "sort of concurrence" as well.

I think what you guys are proposing is that you want to keep the Incubator
VP around to manage/oversee the implementation of my proposal to deconstruct
the Incubator. 

Let's say for 6 months or something, while it's implemented. Is that fair?

If that's the case, I'm +1 to keep the position around, and I'm +1 to 
fill the role and implement the proposal and be the person responsible
for reporting out on it to the board. 

Cheers,
Chris

> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
>> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :)  We might want to break
>> this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
>> 
>> Anyways, just one commment;
>> 
>> On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> 
 I can easily see a small group of
 people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate.
 I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution
 to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be
 handled by the TLP itself by graduation time)
>>> 
>>> I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me,
>>> but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared
>>> to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other
>>> ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be
>>> on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that
>>> those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys
>>> are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that
>>> organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of
>>> ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help
>>> shepherd them in just the way it works today.
>> 
>> You mention also "No need for the position anymore. Just another report to
>> have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the
>> board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1."
>> 
>> What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the
>> middle man.  Think of this VP as the expediter.  The one who takes a whole
>> stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to
>> "Fill this in, and we'll submit these things".
>> 
>> This VP would not be in the middle.  They would be on the sideline.  If
>> the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then
>> marvelous.  If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution
>> in their lives, the VP is there to assist.
>> 
>> The VP keeps the "files" on process.  Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best
>> Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter
>> "Your proposal should state" formal documentation.  Think in terms of
>> ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks.  They don't stand 'over' any
>> committee.  They gather, define and communicate process.  That is the
>> role of VP, Project Incubation.  Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs)
>> assume the *responsibility* for following those processes.  Not a traffic
>> cop, but a tourist guide.
>> 
>> It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just
>> as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring
>> to and caring for the projects in the Attic.  Sure, ComDev will have some
>> good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement.
>> But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the
>> board's feedback.  If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP
>> would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before
>> the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting.
>> 
>> So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether
>> it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation.  It can't be left
>> in a hundred different hands to drop.
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
+

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Benson,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
> tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
> than 2 months.

Sure, so let's say 6 months then. That's commensurate with what Bill 
and I were saying, aka around June 2012, Incubator = bye bye.

To summarize: "yes, Incubation, no Incubator."

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Sam,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>>  wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>>> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
>>> in 6 months (or sooner, if required?) IOW, we accept my proposal asi-is.
>>> Then in 6 months, we'll see how it's working out, and I'll tell you what,
>>> if we need an Incubation VP then, I'll be all for it, and even willing to 
>>> sign
>>> up for it.
>> 
>> With my Director hat on, I would vote to keep the Incubator VP and
>> only eliminate it when it is demonstrated to be of no value. As I
>> mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that
>> require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the
>> podling-TLP or the Board. The Board has enough to do without trying to
>> *also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press,
>> etc.
> 
> With my Director's hat on, I certainly wouldn't dismiss the proposal
> out of hand.

Thanks for that.

> 
> As Bill pointed out previously, the amount of lines in the monthly
> board agendas won't materially change.  

+1.

> What I care most about is
> addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
> which feedback can be directed for each report.

Sure, I get that now. I'm +1 to be that person, so long as I make it 
clear that I'm not intending to be the person for long, and my goal
is:

1. Implement: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
2. Report to the board on its status every month.
3. Start graduating podlings into TLP (spin them out)
4. Any new projects that come along and propose over the next 6 months
should be subject to my proposal in 1.
5. By June 2012 or by July 2012, there is no more Incubator, no IPMC, 
and no Incubator VP role. 

"Yes, Incubation, No, Incubator" :-)

> 
> Podlings typically have multiple ASF members assigned to them (three
> is not an atypical number).  I believe that the responsibility for
> verifying release processes, check on podling branding and press is
> already assigned to these members.

+1, yes.

>  If a podling (with the support of
> the mentors) votes to assign a non ASF-member as the chair, I am OK
> with that too as long as there are still plenty enough people
> monitoring the development of the podling.

Me too.

> 
> I'll name three concerns / items to be addressed:
> 
> First, having the board vote on the creation of each podling is a bit
> too heavy weight.  I for one would prefer that that continue to be
> delegated.

How about to the membership of the ASF? Take it to members@?

> 
> Second, the board is not the appropriate vehicle for fine tuning /
> micro-managing individual projects, much less podlings.  A podling
> that consistently fails to report or fails to address issues
> identified by the board should expect one or more of: a new chair,
> people added or removed from the committee, of for the committee to be
> dissolved entirely.  Having a supportive resource (whether that
> resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not)
> remains important.

Yes, totally, I agree with that too. In fact, I'll admit that your recent
prodding of better IPMC reports helped me crystalize that notion.

> 
> Third, we started to move towards a point where having commit access
> to a podling means commit access to all the incubator.  The proposal
> will need to cover how that is either going to change or how that
> would be expected to work.

To me, it can remain the interim over the next 6 months, but won't matter
after that, because there will be no more Incubator, and it will be 
an individual project's decision.

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Jim,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>> 
>> So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the Incubator PMC, and
>> a good chance they are here now, and reading this.
>> 
>> What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board 
>> hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now 
>> rather than have to wait. 
> 
> I respectfully decline to commit one way or another, due
> to the possibility of it unduly (possibly) swaying things
> one way or another. I'd prefer the discussion to continue,
> unfettered, and all of a sudden having director's plop
> in their opinions will, almost for sure, affect that.

I respect your opinion Jim, but honestly would love 
to hear some feedback from you on this.

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Greg,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Benson,
>> 
>> I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
>> proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve
>> the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my
>> proposal. I realize there are INFRA impacts to this; and other nitty
>> gritty details -- I'm  willing to help where I can with those and to
> facilitate
>> the others.
> 
> I think it will be much longer than that.

OK, so let's say 3x longer, and 6 months. I think July 2012 is fair.

Here's some more concrete steps that I ought to add to the Incubator
wiki here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
but I'm too lazy to, so I'll just type them here :)

1. Interim VP, Incubation role creates all of the TLP JIRA issues for existing 
Incubator podlings
2. Interim VP, Incubation role works with each community and with infra and 
with board 
to track status on all of 1. 
3. Interim VP, Incubation sends messages to the mailing list, encourages 
thoughtful discussion
on each podling of what is coming (aka graduation/TLP status) for each current 
podling.

That being said, let's say new project comes in over the next 6 months.

1. New project Foo is subject immediately to 
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
   - [DISCUSS], [PROPOSAL] occurs on general@incubator
   - [VOTE] occurs on members@, with appropriate links back to discussion on 
general@ incubator
2. [VOTE] results are tallied by 1 of new project's PMC members that's ASF 
member, or its incoming VP, who is a member;
someone has got to be a member, so they can tally the VOTEs
3. Recommendation made to board@ for new project, and resolution constructed 
based on 2.


> Incremental and reversible steps
> are most desirable.

No problem. So, there's incremental, reversible steps above. And also in my 
proposal:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal

> Thus, I would see the Board promoting just a few
> podlings to podling-TLP status, and see how that goes for a couple
> quarters.

We do this right now? What's different? 

Let's set a date to get this done. 6 months. I think it's doable, and seems like
Bill (and hopefully others!) think so too :)

> The Incubator would stick around during that test, continuing
> with the vast majority of podlings.

The existing Incubator can stick around, with the assumption that the VP, 
Incubation
can work with them to get them transitioned according to the steps above.

> 
> Speaking as a Director, that would be my preferred approach. I obviously
> can't speak for the others, but I would argue against a total, immediate
> deconstruction.

Check out what I typed above. 

Good?

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:22 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
> 
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> 
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>>  wrote:
>>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>>> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
>>> proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve
>>> the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my
>>> proposal...
>> 
>> So it seems like there's a good proposal of yours, buried in the way
>> too many (for my own taste) tl:dr emails here recently.
>> 
>> Would you mind putting your proposal at
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator to make it easier to discuss and act
>> on?
> 
> No probs. Done!
> 
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposa

Crap, typed it wrong. Here you go:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Sam Ruby]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>
>> What I care most about is
>> addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
>> which feedback can be directed for each report.
>
> Sure, I get that now. I'm +1 to be that person

I think that what I intended to say and what you seem to have heard
are two different things.  Don't worry, I'm in agreement.  :-)

Current process: individual PPMCs produce reports.  IPMC chair bundles
and forwards.  Board reviews, provides comments to IPMC chair.  For
whatever reason, this has not been effective in closing the loop.

Proposed process (as I understand it): PPMCs produce reports.  Board
reviews, provides comments to PPMC chair.  That does seem to me to be
much more likely to be an effective process.

>> First, having the board vote on the creation of each podling is a bit
>> too heavy weight.  I for one would prefer that that continue to be
>> delegated.
>
> How about to the membership of the ASF? Take it to members@?


  I've yet to see members@ be a productive way to get a crisp
  resolution on ANYTHING in a finite period of time.


>> Second, the board is not the appropriate vehicle for fine tuning /
>> micro-managing individual projects, much less podlings.  A podling
>> that consistently fails to report or fails to address issues
>> identified by the board should expect one or more of: a new chair,
>> people added or removed from the committee, of for the committee to be
>> dissolved entirely.  Having a supportive resource (whether that
>> resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not)
>> remains important.
>
> Yes, totally, I agree with that too. In fact, I'll admit that your recent
> prodding of better IPMC reports helped me crystalize that notion.

Hmm.  I'm wondering if I should be offended.  :-P

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Sam Ruby]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.

While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing,
and able to execute on such?

- Sam Ruby

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
>> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :)  We might want to break
>> this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
>>
>> Anyways, just one commment;
>>
>> On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
 I can easily see a small group of
 people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate.
 I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution
 to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be
 handled by the TLP itself by graduation time)
>>>
>>> I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me,
>>> but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared
>>> to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other
>>> ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be
>>> on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that
>>> those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys
>>> are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that
>>> organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of
>>> ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help
>>> shepherd them in just the way it works today.
>>
>> You mention also "No need for the position anymore. Just another report to
>> have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the
>> board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1."
>>
>> What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the
>> middle man.  Think of this VP as the expediter.  The one who takes a whole
>> stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to
>> "Fill this in, and we'll submit these things".
>>
>> This VP would not be in the middle.  They would be on the sideline.  If
>> the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then
>> marvelous.  If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution
>> in their lives, the VP is there to assist.
>>
>> The VP keeps the "files" on process.  Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best
>> Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter
>> "Your proposal should state" formal documentation.  Think in terms of
>> ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks.  They don't stand 'over' any
>> committee.  They gather, define and communicate process.  That is the
>> role of VP, Project Incubation.  Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs)
>> assume the *responsibility* for following those processes.  Not a traffic
>> cop, but a tourist guide.
>>
>> It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just
>> as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring
>> to and caring for the projects in the Attic.  Sure, ComDev will have some
>> good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement.
>> But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the
>> board's feedback.  If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP
>> would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before
>> the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting.
>>
>> So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether
>> it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation.  It can't be left
>> in a hundred different hands to drop.
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hey Sam,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> What I care most about is
>>> addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
>>> which feedback can be directed for each report.
>> 
>> Sure, I get that now. I'm +1 to be that person
> 
> I think that what I intended to say and what you seem to have heard
> are two different things.  Don't worry, I'm in agreement.  :-)
> 
> Current process: individual PPMCs produce reports.  IPMC chair bundles
> and forwards.  Board reviews, provides comments to IPMC chair.  For
> whatever reason, this has not been effective in closing the loop.
> 
> Proposed process (as I understand it): PPMCs produce reports.  Board
> reviews, provides comments to PPMC chair.  That does seem to me to be
> much more likely to be an effective process.

Yep, you got it. That's what I was trying to say.

> 
>>> First, having the board vote on the creation of each podling is a bit
>>> too heavy weight.  I for one would prefer that that continue to be
>>> delegated.
>> 
>> How about to the membership of the ASF? Take it to members@?
> 
> 
>  I've yet to see members@ be a productive way to get a crisp
>  resolution on ANYTHING in a finite period of time.
> 

Heh. 


  
I've yet to see members@ be a productive way to get a crisp
resolution on ANYTHING in a finite period of time.
  


> 
>>> Second, the board is not the appropriate vehicle for fine tuning /
>>> micro-managing individual projects, much less podlings.  A podling
>>> that consistently fails to report or fails to address issues
>>> identified by the board should expect one or more of: a new chair,
>>> people added or removed from the committee, of for the committee to be
>>> dissolved entirely.  Having a supportive resource (whether that
>>> resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not)
>>> remains important.
>> 
>> Yes, totally, I agree with that too. In fact, I'll admit that your recent
>> prodding of better IPMC reports helped me crystalize that notion.
> 
> Hmm.  I'm wondering if I should be offended.  :-P

Hehe, I tell my friends: you want your sports team to lose? Have 
Mattmann VOTE for them! :) Except for USC of course. We're
on the upswing!

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator

[Colm O hEigeartaigh]

Hi,

> Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
> interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
> first Open Source projects in this field?

I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as a
mentor if possible. I'm an ASF member and work on XML Security (Apache
Santuario), WS-Security (Apache WSS4J) as well as Apache CXF.

Colm.

-- 
Colm O hEigeartaigh

Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Jukka Zitting]

Hi,

[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 wrote:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal

As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
in one go, wouldn't it make more sense to gradually shift into a new
way of doing things?

You're proposing that podlings should start as full TLPs (with ASF
members on board for mentoring) right from the beginning. Instead of
changing the rules on all podlings at the same time, how about we try
this out by giving interested podlings (or new proposals) this "direct
to TLP" option?

If that works out better than the current Incubator model, we can stop
accepting more old-style podlings and just direct them into TLPs right
from the beginning. Meanwhile any existing podlings should have a
chance to graduate under the existing rules unless they rather choose
to use this "direct to TLP" option.

If as a result there's no more podlings in the Incubator, that's IMHO
then the right time to shut down the IPMC, not before. And if it turns
out that the proposed new model doesn't work as expected, we still
have the current processes and structures to fall back to.

The current Incubator model certainly has flaws, but it also does a
lot of things right. There are good reasons for things like the extra
publicity and release constraints placed on podlings, and the proposed
model doesn't address how such restrictions would still work without
the incubator. I note that many of the original constraints of the
Incubator (no releases, etc.) turned out to be unnecessarily strict in
practice, so it could well be that everything will work out smoothly
also without the extra red tape. But small, reversible steps into such
unknown territory are clearly preferable to major leaps of faith.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator

[Francesco Chicchiriccò]

On 03/02/2012 18:23, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:

Hi,


Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
first Open Source projects in this field?

I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as a
mentor if possible. I'm an ASF member and work on XML Security (Apache
Santuario), WS-Security (Apache WSS4J) as well as Apache CXF.


Hi Colm,
this sounds great: I've just added your details to Syncope proposal [1]: 
please check if everything is correct.


Regards.

[1]http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SyncopeProposal

--
Francesco Chicchiriccò

Apache Cocoon Committer and PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Karl Wright]

+1 on this.  Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.

Karl

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
> in one go, wouldn't it make more sense to gradually shift into a new
> way of doing things?
>
> You're proposing that podlings should start as full TLPs (with ASF
> members on board for mentoring) right from the beginning. Instead of
> changing the rules on all podlings at the same time, how about we try
> this out by giving interested podlings (or new proposals) this "direct
> to TLP" option?
>
> If that works out better than the current Incubator model, we can stop
> accepting more old-style podlings and just direct them into TLPs right
> from the beginning. Meanwhile any existing podlings should have a
> chance to graduate under the existing rules unless they rather choose
> to use this "direct to TLP" option.
>
> If as a result there's no more podlings in the Incubator, that's IMHO
> then the right time to shut down the IPMC, not before. And if it turns
> out that the proposed new model doesn't work as expected, we still
> have the current processes and structures to fall back to.
>
> The current Incubator model certainly has flaws, but it also does a
> lot of things right. There are good reasons for things like the extra
> publicity and release constraints placed on podlings, and the proposed
> model doesn't address how such restrictions would still work without
> the incubator. I note that many of the original constraints of the
> Incubator (no releases, etc.) turned out to be unnecessarily strict in
> practice, so it could well be that everything will work out smoothly
> also without the extra red tape. But small, reversible steps into such
> unknown territory are clearly preferable to major leaps of faith.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> -
> 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

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>> thoughts/positioning below.
> 
> While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
> operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing,
> and able to execute on such?

Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan.

Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of
such an effort.

But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the
VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary,
particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value?  I can't
answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the
board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond
dissolution of "IPMC", and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue.

That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even
in the fastest of plans to begin adopting "Foo Project, Incubating" TLPs.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies  
> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
>> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
>> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
>> tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
>> than 2 months.
>>
>> A trial balloon: the board appoints Chris to run a PMC to set this up
>> and try it out -- with the intention of being a short-lived
>> phenomenon. Meanwhile, Noel or I or some other nominee continue to
>> make the best of the incubator as we have it, including the gradual
>> modifications pushed by Sam and Joe. If the board eventually decides
>> that the ipmc is entirely obviated by the membership and comdev, we'll
>> hire a bagpiper for the closing ceremony. If it turns out that a small
>> IPMC providing support and assistance to 'probationary projects' is
>> desired, we'll go on a diet.
>>
>> I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
>> some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
>> and transition the existing clutch. While this can't avoid ending up
>> as electioneering, I don't think it a good idea to simply appoint an
>> IPMC chairman who is focussed like a laser beam on this restructuring
>> to the exclusion of making the best of what we're currently doing.
> 
> This makes sense to me.  Podlings are an obvious granularity to try out this.
> 
> Over a period of years we dissolved Jakarta.  We started by graduating
> Ant and Tomcat to be TLPs.  This was once a new concept.  Over time,
> less and less remained under the umbrella.
> 
> Selecting individual podlings that seem best equipped to try out the
> new experiment would be a reasonable way to proceed.

I'm actually thinking the thru-process test might be more useful.  Take
the next two incubating projects 'accepted', put Chris and I each on one
of them with another few mentors each as usual, give them the board
resolutions to create them as "Project, Incubating" "accountable to the
policies proscribed by the VP, Incubator", and see how the process flows.
Chris and I have each incubated a few projects all the way through, so
it should be easy for us to note obstacles and roadblocks that need to
be corrected through docs and policy revisions.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Mentors as the core of the IPMC

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One thing I would like to be bantered about:
> 
> Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.

By the same measure, there is a role of Champion.  If we can avoid
fracturing that role into co-champions or vice-champions, then you
have the titular head of the first iteration of the committee, and
the go-to person accountable to the board.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 11:47 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> +1 on this.  Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.

One doesn't preclude the other.  As I wrote in response to an almost
entirely different thread, Podlings are accountable to the Incubator
PMC.  A Project, Incubating would be accountable to the policies of
the Incubator VP.

Both can co-exist.  The documentation is near-identical.  One does
not have the independent ability to release code, the other does.
One changes their composition by notifying IPMC, the other would
change their composition by notifying the board.  One has no actual
titular head, but a vague 'Champion' and several 'Mentors' overseeing
the day to day operation and interaction in the project.  The other
would have a titular head, VP e.g. 'Champion', and several 'Mentors'
overseeing the day to day operation and interaction in the project.

One goes through a process to have the IPMC ratify that it is ready
to be a TLP, and the IPMC presents a resolution to the board to
establish a regular project of the ASF, and appointing its first
Chair/VP.  The other would self-certify the same graduation checklist,
and present a resolution to the board to establish a regular project
of the ASF, replacing the Project, Incubating committee, and appointing
an appropriate Chair/VP (to replace the Champion) at that time.

What is missing is the entry documentation into this process, and
the exit documentation from this process.  This is what I would hope
to present to the Board for consideration and generic right track/
wrong track guidance at their February meeting.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hey Bill,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>>> thoughts/positioning below.
>> 
>> While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
>> operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing,
>> and able to execute on such?
> 
> Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan.

+1.

> 
> Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of
> such an effort.

Thanks a lot.

> 
> But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the
> VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary,
> particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value?  I can't
> answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the
> board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond
> dissolution of "IPMC", and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue.

Yeah to be honest, I have 2 other officer positions (OODT + Tika) 
and am active in a lot of other projects. So as today, I'd say, if you 
want that VP, Incubation role (as the dude who will execute the plan,
and who will be accountable for it) to continue beyond 6 months, 
then I would likely have to be replaced then. But who knows
what 6 months time will bring anyways with respect to my feelings.
Dunno.

I like your attitude though -- if I need to be replaced then, replace me.
No biggie.

> 
> That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even
> in the fastest of plans to begin adopting "Foo Project, Incubating" TLPs.

+1, precisely.

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> 
>>> [...snippage...]
>>> 
>>> I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
>>> some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
>>> and transition the existing clutch. While this can't avoid ending up
>>> as electioneering, I don't think it a good idea to simply appoint an
>>> IPMC chairman who is focussed like a laser beam on this restructuring
>>> to the exclusion of making the best of what we're currently doing.
>> 
>> This makes sense to me.  Podlings are an obvious granularity to try out this.
>> 
>> Over a period of years we dissolved Jakarta.  We started by graduating
>> Ant and Tomcat to be TLPs.  This was once a new concept.  Over time,
>> less and less remained under the umbrella.
>> 
>> Selecting individual podlings that seem best equipped to try out the
>> new experiment would be a reasonable way to proceed.
> 
> I'm actually thinking the thru-process test might be more useful.  Take
> the next two incubating projects 'accepted', put Chris and I each on one
> of them with another few mentors each as usual, give them the board
> resolutions to create them as "Project, Incubating" "accountable to the
> policies proscribed by the VP, Incubator", and see how the process flows.
> Chris and I have each incubated a few projects all the way through, so
> it should be easy for us to note obstacles and roadblocks that need to
> be corrected through docs and policy revisions.

Yep, that's fine with me and we have some already being discussed 
potential "podlings" in the old model that would fit this. 

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Franklin, Matthew B.]

>-Original Message-
>From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:27 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
>
>Hi,
>
>[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
>
>On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
>As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
>in one go, wouldn't it make more sense to gradually shift into a new
>way of doing things?

+1

>
>You're proposing that podlings should start as full TLPs (with ASF
>members on board for mentoring) right from the beginning. Instead of
>changing the rules on all podlings at the same time, how about we try
>this out by giving interested podlings (or new proposals) this "direct
>to TLP" option?
>
>If that works out better than the current Incubator model, we can stop
>accepting more old-style podlings and just direct them into TLPs right
>from the beginning. Meanwhile any existing podlings should have a
>chance to graduate under the existing rules unless they rather choose
>to use this "direct to TLP" option.
>
>If as a result there's no more podlings in the Incubator, that's IMHO
>then the right time to shut down the IPMC, not before. And if it turns
>out that the proposed new model doesn't work as expected, we still
>have the current processes and structures to fall back to.
>
>The current Incubator model certainly has flaws, but it also does a
>lot of things right. There are good reasons for things like the extra
>publicity and release constraints placed on podlings, and the proposed
>model doesn't address how such restrictions would still work without
>the incubator. I note that many of the original constraints of the
>Incubator (no releases, etc.) turned out to be unnecessarily strict in
>practice, so it could well be that everything will work out smoothly
>also without the extra red tape. But small, reversible steps into such
>unknown territory are clearly preferable to major leaps of faith.
>

In my year working in an incubator podling, I have come to see that there are a 
lot of very valuable aspects to the organization; some IMO critical to the 
success and growth of Apache as a whole.  IMHO, any changes made must be 
cognizant of all aspects of the incubator and not be a reaction to specific 
pain points.  That isn't to say that new things shouldn't be tried and new 
direction isn't important.  Likewise, these revolution style proposals 
themselves hold value as they explore out-of-the-box approaches that can be 
incorporated into an evolutionary roadmap or maybe even adopted wholesale if 
the entire community agrees on the approach.  

>From what I can tell from the 4+ threads, thousands of written words and 
>multitudes of opinions there is a need to address some issues that haven't 
>scaled with the incubator.  I think Leo in a different thread attempted to 
>catalog some invariants and desires that highlight these points.  I personally 
>favor the evolutionary approach Jukka is suggesting; but I am having a hard 
>time keeping up with where, how and when to participate in these discussions.

So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in 
the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and 
ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft proposals on the 
wiki as Chris did.  At that point, we could have a bake-off discussion where 
the community has the ability to evaluate and chime in with their 
concerns/comments/suggestions.

Thoughts?

>BR,
>
>Jukka Zitting
>
>-
>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

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
> 
> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in 
> the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and 
> ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft proposals on the 
> wiki as Chris did.  At that point, we could have a bake-off discussion where 
> the community has the ability to evaluate and chime in with their 
> concerns/comments/suggestions.

Funny you mention it, the Incubator itself was the product of a bake off
between two proposed resolutions, still recorded in the board minutes :)


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>
>> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage 
>> in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while 
>> and ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft proposals 
>> on the wiki as Chris did.  At that point, we could have a bake-off 
>> discussion where the community has the ability to evaluate and chime in with 
>> their concerns/comments/suggestions.
>
> Funny you mention it, the Incubator itself was the product of a bake off
> between two proposed resolutions, still recorded in the board minutes :)

http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ate Douma]

On 02/03/2012 06:47 PM, Karl Wright wrote:

+1 on this.  Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.


+1 on that

Ate



Karl

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting  wrote:

Hi,

[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
  wrote:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal


As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
in one go, wouldn't it make more sense to gradually shift into a new
way of doing things?

You're proposing that podlings should start as full TLPs (with ASF
members on board for mentoring) right from the beginning. Instead of
changing the rules on all podlings at the same time, how about we try
this out by giving interested podlings (or new proposals) this "direct
to TLP" option?

If that works out better than the current Incubator model, we can stop
accepting more old-style podlings and just direct them into TLPs right
from the beginning. Meanwhile any existing podlings should have a
chance to graduate under the existing rules unless they rather choose
to use this "direct to TLP" option.

If as a result there's no more podlings in the Incubator, that's IMHO
then the right time to shut down the IPMC, not before. And if it turns
out that the proposed new model doesn't work as expected, we still
have the current processes and structures to fall back to.

The current Incubator model certainly has flaws, but it also does a
lot of things right. There are good reasons for things like the extra
publicity and release constraints placed on podlings, and the proposed
model doesn't address how such restrictions would still work without
the incubator. I note that many of the original constraints of the
Incubator (no releases, etc.) turned out to be unnecessarily strict in
practice, so it could well be that everything will work out smoothly
also without the extra red tape. But small, reversible steps into such
unknown territory are clearly preferable to major leaps of faith.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

-
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

RE: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Franklin, Matthew B.]

>-Original Message-
>From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
>
>On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. 
>wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>>
>>> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to
>engage in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a
>while and ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft
>proposals on the wiki as Chris did.  At that point, we could have a bake-off
>discussion where the community has the ability to evaluate and chime in with
>their concerns/comments/suggestions.
>>
>> Funny you mention it, the Incubator itself was the product of a bake off
>> between two proposed resolutions, still recorded in the board minutes :)
>
>http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_
>2002_10_16.txt

Interesting.  What are your thoughts on using this approach for our current 
discussion?  

As I said, staying abreast of all the threads where these discussions are 
occurring is difficult
at best and I feel like some are treating certain ideas as foregone conclusions 
because the 
entire community hasn't been given the time and opportunity to engage without 
joining  
the melee.  In the end, I imagine we will end up compromising, but I think it 
is important  
to take a step back and let others propose a few strategies without it adding 
to the current frenzy.  

>
>-
>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

Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator

[Alex Karasulu]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
wrote:

> Hi,
> I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
> Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
> looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
> honored to give my contribution.
> So I'm going to take the freedom to add myself to the initial committers
> list (obviously if there are no objection)
>
> Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
> G+  :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
> Linkedin:http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
>
>
I am really interested especially since we started stuff like this in the
past like triple sec and the LDAP/KRB side built out over at directory is
so important for IdM. However I'm finding less and less time to mentor and
am trying unsuccessfully to effectively mentor the projects I'm already
involved with.

So it would be irresponsible of me to volunteer now. However guys give me a
rain check and when/if things do change I'm there to help in a hands-on way
since this topic and your project is very important to me.

Welcome, and I hope you succeed in all your endeavors and build a vibrant
community here at Apache.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ate Douma]

On 02/03/2012 08:35 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:

On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:


So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to

engage in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a
while and ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft
proposals on the wiki as Chris did.  At that point, we could have a bake-off
discussion where the community has the ability to evaluate and chime in with
their concerns/comments/suggestions.


Funny you mention it, the Incubator itself was the product of a bake off
between two proposed resolutions, still recorded in the board minutes :)


http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_
2002_10_16.txt


Interesting.  What are your thoughts on using this approach for our current 
discussion?

As I said, staying abreast of all the threads where these discussions are 
occurring is difficult
at best and I feel like some are treating certain ideas as foregone conclusions 
because the
entire community hasn't been given the time and opportunity to engage without 
joining
the melee.  In the end, I imagine we will end up compromising, but I think it 
is important
to take a step back and let others propose a few strategies without it adding 
to the current frenzy.


Thanks for voicing this Matt, I can't agree more.

Last weeks discussions on general@ (and private) really were impossible to 
follow with everyone jumping the gun or at each others troat, thread hijacking, 
too many half-baked/refined/opposed/amended/etc. proposals to booth.


And it seemed like some were even trying to turn that mess to their advantage by 
trying to 'force' some conclusions or at least make it seem so.

What *is* this rush about, so all of the sudden?

There surely is a lot to improve, but rushing into half-backed and not properly 
thought through radical changes doesn't make sense to me.


So, taking a step back, and have the proposers draft up a comprehensible story 
first, and *please* not on this list but on the wiki, really would be appreciated.


Thanks, Ate





-
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

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Sam Ruby]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>>> thoughts/positioning below.
>>
>> While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
>> operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing,
>> and able to execute on such?
>
> Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan.

I may be misreading or not following, but I see the original (now
elided) description as being at least subtly different than what Chris
is proposing.

What we currently have is a Incubator.  The board sees the list of
members of that PMC as those who oversee the entire project.  The
Incubator sees the list of members of itself as mentors to various
podlings who need not have any additional role.

I saw what Bill described as fixing that by more closely aligning what
the Incubator sees itself with how the Board sees the incubator.  The
net effect would be a much smaller list of IPMC members.

I see what Chris described as reducing the IPMC members to zero.

There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
PPMC to work with this group.

This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
continue indefinitely.

This (at least to me) doesn't seem to be something that Chris is signing up for.

> Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of
> such an effort.

+1

> But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the
> VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary,
> particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value?  I can't
> answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the
> board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond
> dissolution of "IPMC", and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue.

"hasn't convinced him of its value" is evidence that what you are
describing is different than what Chis is proposing.  Hence, my
question: is there anybody willing to sign up for what you are
describing?  I ask this is something I would support.

> That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even
> in the fastest of plans to begin adopting "Foo Project, Incubating" TLPs.

I'm not so sure.  Chris is talking about reducing the Incubator to
zero in a matter of months.

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Greg Stein]

I believe there is a minor typo below:

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.  
> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
 Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
 :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
 thoughts/positioning below.
>>>
>>> While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
>>> operate, do we the name of a potential chair who is ready, willing,
>>> and able to execute on such?
>>
>> Chris is clearly willing, he authored the plan.
>
> I may be misreading or not following, but I see the original (now
> elided) description as being at least subtly different than what Chris
> is proposing.
>
> What we currently have is a Incubator.  The board sees the list of
> members of that PMC as those who oversee the entire project.  The
> Incubator sees the list of members of itself as mentors to various
> podlings who need not have any additional role.
>
> I saw what Bill described as fixing that by more closely aligning what
> the Incubator sees itself with how the Board sees the incubator.  The
> net effect would be a much smaller list of IPMC members.
>
> I see what Chris described as reducing the IPMC members to zero.
>
> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
> or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
> PPMC to work with this group.

^^ should be IPMC, I believe.

(and FWIW, this is the model that I believe we should move to; in a
couple years, we may find this new-IPMC can be phased out, but I'd
like to see the new model well-tested first)

>
> This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
> continue indefinitely.
>
> This (at least to me) doesn't seem to be something that Chris is signing up 
> for.
>
>> Moreso, there are those of us who would support him in execution of
>> such an effort.
>
> +1
>
>> But is he willing to stay the 6 months beyond dissolving the IPMC as the
>> VP, Project Incubation if the board believes such a post is necessary,
>> particularly if the board hasn't convinced him of its value?  I can't
>> answer for him, but I trust there will be enough participants for the
>> board to select a different individual if 1) it wants that post beyond
>> dissolution of "IPMC", and 2) Chris can't bring himself to continue.
>
> "hasn't convinced him of its value" is evidence that what you are
> describing is different than what Chis is proposing.  Hence, my
> question: is there anybody willing to sign up for what you are
> describing?  I ask this is something I would support.
>
>> That particular inflection point is quite a ways down the road, even
>> in the fastest of plans to begin adopting "Foo Project, Incubating" TLPs.
>
> I'm not so sure.  Chris is talking about reducing the Incubator to
> zero in a matter of months.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> -
> 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

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Roy T. Fielding]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
> or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
> PPMC to work with this group.
> 
> This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
> continue indefinitely.

IMO, that sounds like ComDev.  ComDev was created, at least in part, to
complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an
Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status.

Roy


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
>> or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
>> PPMC to work with this group.
>> 
>> This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
>> continue indefinitely.
> 
> IMO, that sounds like ComDev.  ComDev was created, at least in part, to
> complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an
> Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status.

+1, Roy. In my proposal, that is ComDev.

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Doug Cutting]

On 02/02/2012 09:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board 
> hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now 
> rather than have to wait. 

I like the simplicity of erasing the layer of management that is the
Incubator.

The board is a stricter parent but with less attention to detail and
patience than the IPMC has shown.  Board members are not likely to
examine every proposed release tarball to check that everything is
licensed correctly.  On the other hand, if a project doesn't report or
fails to act on advice from the board for long, then the board will
replace the chair or propose to closing the project.

Would it work to the board as a single parent?  Yes, I think it would.
It would be a "tough love" approach.  However if there were also people
advising and monitoring young projects then things might go more
smoothly.  So if folks are willing to organize and manage this kinder,
gentler parent/teacher then I'd be happy to have a VP Incubation.

Doug

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Time to vote the chair?

[Benson Margulies]

At this point I am going to frankly campaign for myself.

I am willing to be the chair of the incubator as we know it, and
strive to incrementally improve it. I have no objection to that
process including a deliberate consideration of Chris' proposal for a
radical restructuring. Given some time, that proposal may beget
alternatives of more or less radicallity.

If I understand Chris correctly, he's volunteering on the
understanding that the PMC, under his leadership, will move swiftly to
adopt something like the scheme he's proposed.

This seems to offer a clear choice to the community: if you want the
community to focus on a radical restructuring with a strong
presumption in favor of Chris' proposal, then ask the board to appoint
him.

If, on the other hand, you still believe that a new chair would be a
good idea, but you believe that time, thought, and perhaps incremental
change are more appropriate, then ask the board to appoint me. Or Noel
again. Or find another volunteer.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
>>> or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
>>> PPMC to work with this group.
>>>
>>> This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
>>> continue indefinitely.
>>
>> IMO, that sounds like ComDev.  ComDev was created, at least in part, to
>> complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an
>> Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status.
> 
> +1, Roy. In my proposal, that is ComDev.

And the proposed edit doesn't change ComDev's role one bit in terms of
the documentation of ASF project documentation, either.

The only proposed edit if the board desires would be to retain a VP,
Project Incubation as the board's agent in making things happen when
the champion/mentors are less familiar with the technical details, and
align the day to day process of incubation to address the board's ever
evolving requirements and concerns.

Think of VP, Project Incubation as the Board's and ComDev's agent for
change as it becomes necessary.  Like VP, Java Community it would be
a stub/inactive placeholder most of the rest of the time.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Sam Ruby]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding  wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
>> or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
>> PPMC to work with this group.
>>
>> This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
>> continue indefinitely.
>
> IMO, that sounds like ComDev.  ComDev was created, at least in part, to
> complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an
> Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status.



"whether that resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I
care not" [1]

That being said, I would want to verify that the ComDev chair agreed
before I would support such a change.  If so, I'm in.

> Roy

- Sam Ruby

[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201202.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8HTFBDxqwT_3_oKeD67y_dPzdZLAtH9WG8Nmy0CgY3J1Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>> 
>>> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage 
>>> in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while 
>>> and ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft proposals 
>>> on the wiki as Chris did.  At that point, we could have a bake-off 
>>> discussion where the community has the ability to evaluate and chime in 
>>> with their concerns/comments/suggestions.
>> 
>> Funny you mention it, the Incubator itself was the product of a bake off
>> between two proposed resolutions, still recorded in the board minutes :)
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_10_16.txt

It is actually interesting reading those resolutions - although to be honest I 
didn't see much difference between them. I don't really see anything wrong with 
them.  As I see it, the problem with the PMC isn't its charter but how it has 
chosen to carry it out.  For example, requiring mentors to be IPMC members vs 
ASF members means constantly pinging the board with people who are coming and 
going who are interested in helping a podling succeed but who aren't really 
interested in running the incubator.  I really see nothing wrong with having an 
incubator PMC whose job it is to monitor the podlings, make sure they have 
active mentors, are getting the help they need and then make a decision on 
graduating or retiring them.  However, that PMC doesn't need more than a dozen 
people on it.

"Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the 
problem. 

Ralph 
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the 
> problem. 

That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.

Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of their own
committees, gives them voices in a process that they are locked out of.

One recent response was to hand pick a select few of the PPMC contributors
who went above and beyond, and give these exalted few individual membership
in the IPMC, so their votes would be binding.

But Roy has always been fond of saying that if you are creating the code
you should be the one with voting privileges.  All of 'you'.

Making each 'podling' an actual committee, with additional restrictions
due to their 'freshness' and new exposure to ASF culture, gives the core
of each new podling the voice and authority to act on their own code.

And /that/ is the problem that we are trying to solve ;)


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[VOTE] Release Giraph 0.1-incubator (RC0)

[Jakob Homan]

Howdy-
The Giraph project is excited to ask incubator for a vote on our first release.

The vote passed within the project as follows:
PPMC +1s x 4: Avery, Hyunsik, Jake, Claudio
Mentors +1s x 1: Owen
Peanut gallery +1s x 1: Harsh

Release notes: 
http://people.apache.org/~jghoman/giraph-0.1.0-incubating-rc0/RELEASE_NOTES.html

Release artifacts:
http://people.apache.org/~jghoman/giraph-0.1.0-incubating-rc0/

Corresponding svn tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/giraph/tags/release-0.1-rc0/

Our signing keys (my key doesn't seem to be being picked up by
http://people.apache.org/keys/group/giraph.asc):
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/giraph/KEYS

The vote will run for 72 hours, until Monday 5pm PST.

Thanks,
Jakob

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> >  wrote:
> >> ...

...

> "Oh, we have these sets of projects that are related, let's create a
> meta committee that will [wrangle] them together, and then report
> out on their status, share MLs, etc. etc."
>
> Each and every time the above is presented, the argument against
> (besides maintaining the status quo, which I honestly think is being
> pushed here) is that there is no need for such a meta committee
> (and by transitivity) a meta VP role. That's what the Incubator VP
> is. A meta VP. We don't need the role.

This ignored a great many suggestions. Including my own (which I've not got
sufficient time to flesh out right now, but you seem to be making
significant assumptions about what flesh there would be on those bones).

>
>
> > As I
> > mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that
> > require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the
> > podling-TLP
>
> I don't agree with this. It's shifted to the project TLP. That's OK.
> Why is this not?

The incubator had demonstrated that relying on mentors is not always
sufficient. The incubator has failed in it's guidance rule. It has turned
to oversight and interference. Your proposal, in it's current form, will
remove the interference but will not revive the guidance.

The ASF is not just a place to host open source. It is a community
learning how to do community is hard. The incubator was created to help
that learning. Your proposal, as it stands will remove the interference but
will not revive the learning.

> > The Board has enough to do without trying to
> > *also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press,
> > etc.
>
> You guys don't do that for projects, why would you do it in this case?

TLPs are self governing, podling TLPs could be, but your proposal assumes
they alwats will be, from day one. Yet the incubator demonstrates mentors
often fail in this regard. I am not involved in a single poddling that can
mystery three binding votes on a release today. The IPMC fills the gap, but
it also generates interference. Your proposal, as it stands, will remove
the interference but will not maintain the necessary oversight.

>
> To summarize in a sentence my proposal:
>
> "Get rid of the Incubator PMC, its VP, etc and just start treating
incoming
> projects like Apache projects, day 1."

Most incoming projects are not Apache infects on day 1. Your proposal, as
it stands, will result in a new kind of Apache. One in which the average
standard of IP management is reduced. One in which the strength of the
average community is reduced.

Despite all this I like you're proposal. It has a great deal of merit, but
it is incomplete. All that is required for me to like it is to say, this is
the starting point, lets identify suitable projects that can survive in
this format. Work with them and address the issues that emerge. Later we
can move the more complex projects into this format.

Ross

>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?

[Ross Gardler]

On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding  wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me.  Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
>>> or...).  In particular, when problems arise the board would direct the
>>> PPMC to work with this group.
>>>
>>> This group would be much smaller than the current Incubator, but would
>>> continue indefinitely.
>>
>> IMO, that sounds like ComDev.  ComDev was created, at least in part, to
>> complete the documentation tasks that Incubator dropped and act as an
>> Apache-wide community builder regardless of project status.

Nope. ComDev was created to manage GSoC and other such activities.
That being said, it is true that we have found it helpful to create a
different type of documentation to support that goal.

> "whether that resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I
> care not" [1]
>
> That being said, I would want to verify that the ComDev chair agreed
> before I would support such a change.  If so, I'm in.

So would I (as ComDev chair ;-)

I just posted elsewhere on this topic with a new subject. This part of
the discussion can go there. Thanks for highlighting this Sam.

Ross

>
>> Roy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201202.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8HTFBDxqwT_3_oKeD67y_dPzdZLAtH9WG8Nmy0CgY3J1Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> 
>> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the 
>> problem. 
> 
> That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
> so little wonder you are confused.
> 
> Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of their own
> committees, gives them voices in a process that they are locked out of.
> 
> One recent response was to hand pick a select few of the PPMC contributors
> who went above and beyond, and give these exalted few individual membership
> in the IPMC, so their votes would be binding.

And who said the IPMC had to fix the problem that way?  Why is making a podling 
effectively a TLP with a PMC that reports to the board and a VP of incubation 
the only way to fix this?  What is preventing us from allowing the PPMC to have 
much more control over what they do while preserving the IPMC?  The rule that 
says a PMC created by the board has to have 3 votes for a release? This seems 
like a sledgehammer approach to fix that.  After all, all the bylaws say about 
this is the PMC chair "shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day 
management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible."  It would be 
perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a PPMC to have 
binding votes.

> 
> But Roy has always been fond of saying that if you are creating the code
> you should be the one with voting privileges.  All of 'you'.
> 
> Making each 'podling' an actual committee, with additional restrictions
> due to their 'freshness' and new exposure to ASF culture, gives the core
> of each new podling the voice and authority to act on their own code.

While each podling should be an actual committee, there is no reason they can't 
be sub-committees of the IPMC with the authority that has been delegated to 
them. 

> 
> And /that/ is the problem that we are trying to solve ;)

I agree with that. I think everyone is saying it is stupid to require mentors 
to be IPMC members. So fix that.  

I'd prefer a structure where every PPMC had active and qualified mentors to 
help with community building and performing a release, and without having to go 
to the IPMC to add new committers or get a release approved.  The purpose of 
the IPMC would then be to make sure each podling had active and qualified 
mentors, to add new podlings or terminate dead podlings and recommend 
graduation to the board.   

The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that 
mentors seem to fail at mentoring.  Creating a project that reports to the 
board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes the problem to the board, which 
is IMO not what they should be having to deal with.

Ralph

Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ross Gardler]

My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
this.

Doesn't that strike the candidates as a little odd?

l want to know what ComDev is being asked to do. The proposal in the wiki
is not clear in this regard and a number of discussion questions remain
unanswered.

I realise I've made it clear that I don't object, in principle, but I'm
only one member of ComDev. Furthermore I've made it clear I'm having
difficulty keeping up at the moment due to other commitments. As a result
of these two facts I'm not willing to sign ComDev up to an, as yet,
undefined role. I request that someone, shows ComDev, and in particular
myself as VP ComDev, tasks to us rather than about us.

Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
see for ComDev?

Ross

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> 
> The incubator had demonstrated that relying on mentors is not always
> sufficient. The incubator has failed in it's guidance rule. It has turned
> to oversight and interference. Your proposal, in it's current form, will
> remove the interference but will not revive the guidance.
> 
> The ASF is not just a place to host open source. It is a community
> learning how to do community is hard. The incubator was created to help
> that learning. Your proposal, as it stands will remove the interference but
> will not revive the learning.

This was precisely my reaction but you have said it much better.

> 
>>> The Board has enough to do without trying to
>>> *also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press,
>>> etc.
>> 
>> You guys don't do that for projects, why would you do it in this case?
> 
> TLPs are self governing, podling TLPs could be, but your proposal assumes
> they alwats will be, from day one. Yet the incubator demonstrates mentors
> often fail in this regard. I am not involved in a single poddling that can
> mystery three binding votes on a release today. The IPMC fills the gap, but
> it also generates interference. Your proposal, as it stands, will remove
> the interference but will not maintain the necessary oversight.

+1

Ralph




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a 
> PPMC to have binding votes.

I don't see a reasonable alternative structure.  Feel free to propose one.

I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases.  That
would /still/ mean having the board acknowledge those who are doing the
voting, or making a rather complex structure of the board conveying the
responsibility for granting code review/approval karma to another body.

It all falls back on the board.  Right now, we are running two boards,
one over incubating efforts and one over 'mature' projects; one is
empowering projects and the other emasculating them.  This is really
quite silly and seems we aught to quit it already.

My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
> see for ComDev?

Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal

Committee:  Previous responsibility   <--->   Revised responsibility
_   ___   __

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ross Gardler]

On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers  wrote:
> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that 
> mentors seem to fail at mentoring.  Creating a
> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes 
> the problem to the board, which is IMO not what they
> should be having to deal with.

I agree. This proposal in its current form solves on problem (IPMC
inefficiencies) and moves another the problem (inadequate mentoring),

I think the problem here is that the supporters of this proposal are
diligent and committed mentors. I'm here to tell them that sometimes
mentors are not as able to remain focussed in this way. We need to put
a safety net in place for the podlings that find themselves lost at
sea. The IPMC was created to provide that safety net. Over the years
it has become so entangled it is no longer useful.

We need to rebuild the safety net, not remove it completely (that
doesn't necessarily mean we have to keep the IPMC)


Ross
I say it is needed.

Ross


-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that 
>> mentors seem to fail at mentoring.  Creating a
>> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes 
>> the problem to the board, which is IMO not what they
>> should be having to deal with.
> 
> I agree. This proposal in its current form solves on problem (IPMC
> inefficiencies) and moves another the problem (inadequate mentoring),

No.

The existing problem remains the revised problem.  Any solution applicable
to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfunctional PMC, Incubating.

Except that the board is likely to be much less tolerant and much quicker
to disband a failed effort that the motley band of IPMC has been.

The problem set is identical, and this proposal does not address it any
better or worse than the current committee structure.

The problem varies in one dimension only; in the IPMC, the general@ comes
to the rescue of absent mentors.  That won't be possible in the revised
structure without the rescuers signing up and committing to mentor the
Project, Incubating as PMC members.  And since there are many complaints
about insufficient commitment, this is probably not a bad thing.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: TL;DR

[Ross Gardler]

On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
> time.

+1

> Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
> first.

All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
ComDev." As chair of ComDev I think the candidates ought to make it
clear what is expected of that committee. I don't believe any of the
current candidates have addressed that and therefore.

I realise some people seem to think it is just about documentation, it
is *not*. I say this from experience here and elsewhere. See tonights
ComDev related posts on this list for an expansion of this point.

How the candidates address this is up to them. A detailed plan would
be great, but an honest commitment to work with ComDev rather than
drop them in it as fast as is possible would also be OK.

Ross

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> 
>> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a 
>> PPMC to have binding votes.
> 
> I don't see a reasonable alternative structure.  Feel free to propose one.

I thought I did.  The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings 
formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on 
releases, add new committers, etc..  My proposal is to give podlings the 
authority to make the releases and add new committers as long as they have 
approval of their mentors. It doesn't require a change in bylaws or even, so 
far as I can tell, explicit board approval to do this. It might require someone 
to change the voting page to clarify that the incubator works differently. Big 
deal.

> 
> I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases.  That
> would /still/ mean having the board acknowledge those who are doing the
> voting, or making a rather complex structure of the board conveying the
> responsibility for granting code review/approval karma to another body.

Please point me to anything that says the board has to be involved in any of 
that.  

> 
> It all falls back on the board.  Right now, we are running two boards,
> one over incubating efforts and one over 'mature' projects; one is
> empowering projects and the other emasculating them.  This is really
> quite silly and seems we aught to quit it already.

Everything falls back on the board. But the board delegates. The IPMC has the 
authority to delegate, but only what the board has given it ownership of.  If 
desired, the IPMC can propose a resolution to the board to seek explicit 
approval for the delegation, but I'm not sure even that is required.


> 
> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
> tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
> micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
> simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).

As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also removes 
much of the oversight and practically all of the help and support.  

Ralph


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Ross,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Greg,
>> 
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>>>  wrote:
 ...
> 
> ...
> 
>> "Oh, we have these sets of projects that are related, let's create a
>> meta committee that will [wrangle] them together, and then report
>> out on their status, share MLs, etc. etc."
>> 
>> Each and every time the above is presented, the argument against
>> (besides maintaining the status quo, which I honestly think is being
>> pushed here) is that there is no need for such a meta committee
>> (and by transitivity) a meta VP role. That's what the Incubator VP
>> is. A meta VP. We don't need the role.
> 
> This ignored a great many suggestions. Including my own (which I've not got
> sufficient time to flesh out right now, but you seem to be making
> significant assumptions about what flesh there would be on those bones).

Well what do you expect? Everyone is chiming in, and I'm doing my 
best to reply to all the emails but I can't keep up. 

Also, I will state that in response to "...you seem to be making significant
assumptions about what flesh there would be on those bones.", you are
doing *precisely* the same thing in your responses below.

> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As I
>>> mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that
>>> require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the
>>> podling-TLP
>> 
>> I don't agree with this. It's shifted to the project TLP. That's OK.
>> Why is this not?
> 
> The incubator had demonstrated that relying on mentors is not always
> sufficient. The incubator has failed in it's guidance rule. It has turned
> to oversight and interference. Your proposal, in it's current form, will
> remove the interference but will not revive the guidance.

First off, the incubator isn't the only committee that's demonstrated
relying on mentors (which I'll substitute ASF members for) is not
always sufficient. *Every* single committee does that. That's why
they have a VP, but beyond that, that's why we have a board, and
the VPs are accountable to the board. And that's why the board
can replace a VP, b/c they don't always get it right; or because
of other priorities, or recommendations; or because they get 
TL;DR after reading Mattmann's emails. Or whatever.

Second, my proposal in its current form does the best job
I know of with the ASF of addressing guidance. It puts it
in the hand of a VP for a project (formerly called a podling) 
and that project's Project Management Committee.
And it also requires 3 ASF members to be there. That's the 
best way I know how to do it. And, if you'll recall Jim's message
to the members in the past 2 years about "internal belly gazing" or 
"navel" gazing or whatever the word was when he was talking
about the foundation as a whole and how even though there
have been little blips over the years, it's still largely been a 
successful model.

Finally, my proposal (despite Marvin's comments about boiling
the ocean -- no worries Marvin :) ) addresses what I think 
are concrete, actionable steps and does *not* try to boil
the ocean. Those concrete, actionable steps are things that
can be monitored and acted upon over the coming months 
(and yes they can even be reverted, though I hope not!).
Sure, I'd love for the Incubator to be dissolved at the next board meeting
because I think all the extra drum beating and "data points" 
and whatever that people want and keep clamoring for 
are already there if you've been active in the Incubator and 
watching which podlings succeed and which don't, and whatever, 
and I don't think the sky would fall, nor would we suddenly become
the wild west . But, I'm realistic. Based on the feedback so far, I 
am willing to concede that this will take time, months. I'm even
willing to concede that during that time, I'll (or someone else) will 
volunteer time to assist in that transition and report to the board.


> 
> The ASF is not just a place to host open source. It is a community
> learning how to do community is hard. The incubator was created to help
> that learning. Your proposal, as it stands will remove the interference but
> will not revive the learning.

The learning is done. Have you seen the 
oodles and oodles of Incubator documentation? Have you seen
the quality of RMs and the peeps that are rolling releases, responding
to feedback and navigating that body of work? Sure, there are snafus, 
but so what. It's a good body of work.

Everyone keeps pissing and moaning that getting rid of the Incubator is
a "punishment". It's *not* that in the least. Go back and read my initial 
response to Roy. I called it a "success". It is a success. It's produced tons
of successful Apache projects; great documentation; lots of good will and
press, a

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>>> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that 
>>> mentors seem to fail at mentoring.  Creating a
>>> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes 
>>> the problem to the board, which is IMO not what they
>>> should be having to deal with.
>> 
>> I agree. This proposal in its current form solves on problem (IPMC
>> inefficiencies) and moves another the problem (inadequate mentoring),
> 
> No.
> 
> The existing problem remains the revised problem.  Any solution applicable
> to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
> VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfunctional PMC, Incubating.

So why wouldn't the VP, Incubator have a committee to help him?  Shoot even the 
Attic has a committee.


> 
> Except that the board is likely to be much less tolerant and much quicker
> to disband a failed effort that the motley band of IPMC has been.
> 
> The problem set is identical, and this proposal does not address it any
> better or worse than the current committee structure.

Well, to be blunt, that sucks.

> 
> The problem varies in one dimension only; in the IPMC, the general@ comes
> to the rescue of absent mentors.  That won't be possible in the revised
> structure without the rescuers signing up and committing to mentor the
> Project, Incubating as PMC members.  And since there are many complaints
> about insufficient commitment, this is probably not a bad thing.

Couldn't disagree more.  Getting rid of threads like these would make the list 
quite useful as podlings could actually ask for help and not have to wade 
through endless discussions to get it.  With the alternative the discussions 
will be forced to move to members@ or some other obscure list.

Ralph


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hey Bill,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> 
>> Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
>> see for ComDev?
> 
> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
> 
> Committee:  Previous responsibility   <--->   Revised responsibility
> _   ___   __
> 
> -

Great idea!

I've added this to the proposal:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal

Ross: I think the table shows what I think ComDev should take over. 

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: TL;DR

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
> ComDev." 

Ross, I'm not a candidate.  But I certainly don't believe that.

Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
board.  That means mentors must appeal to members and committers for
mentorship and members will need to step up if they want to adopt new
projects into the ASF.  And should the board see they are not adequately
mentored, the board has a simple remedy; terminate the effort.

I really think that mentorship will no longer be a great issue, if it
is upon the incubating projects to yell when they receive no guidance
or oversight.  And it will no longer be necessary to join the IPMC to
become a mentor.

I believe ComDev should own the documentation of operating a healthy
PMC, and the VP, Incubation should maintain a very trivial list pointing
into that documentation and demanding measurable results against that
documentation.  Incubator is a many-too-layered onion today, and it
seems people keep trying to wrap Chris's proposal in more layers of
Onion, because it is insufficiently complex to result in 100 people
arguing with one another for days on end.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
> 
> I thought I did.  The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings 
> formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on 
> releases, add new committers, etc..  My proposal is to give podlings the 
> authority to make the releases and add new committers as long as they have 
> approval of their mentors. It doesn't require a change in bylaws or even, so 
> far as I can tell, explicit board approval to do this. It might require 
> someone to change the voting page to clarify that the incubator works 
> differently. Big deal.

That's not a proposal the board can ratify at the next board meeting.

Try again.  It's not all that simple.  Give it a shot :)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> [...snip...]
>> 
>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
>> tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>> micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
>> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
>> simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).
> 
> As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also removes 
> much of the oversight and practically all of the help and support.  

Umm, no it doesn't.

It makes formal what is currently happening and what should be happening in 
successful projects (and podlings). 
The help and support is there. There is a sh*t ton of Incubator docs; almost a 
page for every possible thing
you could think of. Ask the current set of RMs on the podlings how easy it is 
to navigate? 

And beyond the docs, the safety net is there. You're ignoring that there is a 
VP for each project, responsible to the board, 
and there is a PMC for each project that should consist of people that get 
along and care. And my proposal says 3 of 
them should be ASF members.

If in that sea of membership above for an incoming project, we can't mentor, 
train, or muster 3 VOTEs, why the hell is
the project here at the ASF?

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> The existing problem remains the revised problem.  Any solution applicable
>> to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
>> VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfunctional PMC, Incubating.
> 
> So why wouldn't the VP, Incubator have a committee to help him?  Shoot even 
> the Attic has a committee.

I've stated previously, I believe they will appoint one, with some of
the helpful individuals who will ensure things get done.  The VP is the
one accountable and I'm sure that person would find people to share the
load, just as with the Attic.

>> Except that the board is likely to be much less tolerant and much quicker
>> to disband a failed effort that the motley band of IPMC has been.
>>
>> The problem set is identical, and this proposal does not address it any
>> better or worse than the current committee structure.
> 
> Well, to be blunt, that sucks.

No.  In all reality, it doesn't.  Far too many resources were drained in
the past five years on a handful of projects which never had a hope of
graduating.  An example was Blue Sky.  This will force mentors to pick
their battles, stand by their battles, and not to completely walk away
from them for months at a time.

>> The problem varies in one dimension only; in the IPMC, the general@ comes
>> to the rescue of absent mentors.  That won't be possible in the revised
>> structure without the rescuers signing up and committing to mentor the
>> Project, Incubating as PMC members.  And since there are many complaints
>> about insufficient commitment, this is probably not a bad thing.
> 
> Couldn't disagree more.  Getting rid of threads like these would make the 
> list quite useful as podlings could actually ask for help and not have to 
> wade through endless discussions to get it.  With the alternative the 
> discussions will be forced to move to members@ or some other obscure list.

And show me evidence over the past /eight/ years where that has happened?
Let's stop hand waving and produce examples and cases we can discuss.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I thought I did.  The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings 
>> formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote 
>> on releases, add new committers, etc..  My proposal is to give podlings the 
>> authority to make the releases and add new committers as long as they have 
>> approval of their mentors. It doesn't require a change in bylaws or even, so 
>> far as I can tell, explicit board approval to do this. It might require 
>> someone to change the voting page to clarify that the incubator works 
>> differently. Big deal.
> 
> That's not a proposal the board can ratify at the next board meeting.

Re-read what I've written. I don't believe the board needs to ratify anything. 
The IPMC has the ability to re-model itself without requiring a board 
resolution. What I've suggested is exactly in line with the resolution that was 
passed in 2002.

Ralph


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
>> tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>> micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
>> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
>> simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).
> 
> As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also removes 
> much of the oversight and practically all of the help and support.  

One of my problems is that most of the biggest fans of micromanagement
and endless debate here at incubator spend nearly no time looking over
the graduated projects throughout the foundation to ensure they are
being overseen.  If that doesn't happen, the ASF will suffer the death
of 1000 fractures.

This proposal suggests that every project throughout the ASF needs the
support of the ASF's members, that incubating projects simply need to
pay extra attentions to each and every one of those requirements at
first, in order to prove they are likely to succeed.  Then they can
move on to operating as a full TLP, going back to the very same resources
they enjoyed during their incubation during the rough patches.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
>> 
>> 
>> Well, to be blunt, that sucks.
> 
> No.  In all reality, it doesn't.  Far too many resources were drained in
> the past five years on a handful of projects which never had a hope of
> graduating.  An example was Blue Sky.  This will force mentors to pick
> their battles, stand by their battles, and not to completely walk away
> from them for months at a time.

Yes - in reality it does. Your opinion doesn't count more than mine and we can 
go around in this circle endlessly.  Yes, too many resources have been drained 
but that is only because the IPMC seemed to think it could only operate one 
way. I have no idea why.

You are obviously in favor of Chris' proposal. I'm not. This isn't going to be 
solved by which of us posts last.



Ralph



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> 
>>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
>>> tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
>>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>>> micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
>>> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
>>> simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).
>> 
>> As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also removes 
>> much of the oversight and practically all of the help and support.  
> 
> One of my problems is that most of the biggest fans of micromanagement
> and endless debate here at incubator spend nearly no time looking over
> the graduated projects throughout the foundation to ensure they are
> being overseen.  If that doesn't happen, the ASF will suffer the death
> of 1000 fractures.
> 
> This proposal suggests that every project throughout the ASF needs the
> support of the ASF's members, that incubating projects simply need to
> pay extra attentions to each and every one of those requirements at
> first, in order to prove they are likely to succeed.  Then they can
> move on to operating as a full TLP, going back to the very same resources
> they enjoyed during their incubation during the rough patches.

Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling be 
a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and 
responsibility they are missing today. You don't need to blow away the IPMC to 
fix this problem.

Ralph
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: TL;DR

[Benson Margulies]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>> One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
>> time.
>
> +1
>
>> Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
>> first.
>
> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
> ComDev." As chair of ComDev I think the candidates ought to make it
> clear what is expected of that committee. I don't believe any of the
> current candidates have addressed that and therefore.

Ross, I've tried to qualify that support, but perhaps I haven't
qualified it enough.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:

> 
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> 
 My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
 tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
 the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
 micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
 Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
 simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).
>>> 
>>> As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also 
>>> removes much of the oversight and practically all of the help and support.  
>> 
>> One of my problems is that most of the biggest fans of micromanagement
>> and endless debate here at incubator spend nearly no time looking over
>> the graduated projects throughout the foundation to ensure they are
>> being overseen.  If that doesn't happen, the ASF will suffer the death
>> of 1000 fractures.
>> 
>> This proposal suggests that every project throughout the ASF needs the
>> support of the ASF's members, that incubating projects simply need to
>> pay extra attentions to each and every one of those requirements at
>> first, in order to prove they are likely to succeed.  Then they can
>> move on to operating as a full TLP, going back to the very same resources
>> they enjoyed during their incubation during the rough patches.
> 
> Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling 
> be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and 
> responsibility they are missing today. You don't need to blow away the IPMC 
> to fix this problem.

So, let me get this straight.

"Make incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they are 
missing today?"

Sounds a ton like my existing proposal. With some kitchen sink (the IPMC) added 
in.

If incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they lack have 
today, there is 
no IPMC.

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Giraph 0.1-incubator (RC0)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Jakob,

My suggestion: let it run for "at least" 72 hours.

It doesn't need to close until you've got all the VOTEs you need,
and at least for 72 hours.

And yes I intend to review it and VOTE. :)

Cheers,
Chris

On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:

> Howdy-
> The Giraph project is excited to ask incubator for a vote on our first 
> release.
> 
> The vote passed within the project as follows:
> PPMC +1s x 4: Avery, Hyunsik, Jake, Claudio
> Mentors +1s x 1: Owen
> Peanut gallery +1s x 1: Harsh
> 
> Release notes: 
> http://people.apache.org/~jghoman/giraph-0.1.0-incubating-rc0/RELEASE_NOTES.html
> 
> Release artifacts:
> http://people.apache.org/~jghoman/giraph-0.1.0-incubating-rc0/
> 
> Corresponding svn tag:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/giraph/tags/release-0.1-rc0/
> 
> Our signing keys (my key doesn't seem to be being picked up by
> http://people.apache.org/keys/group/giraph.asc):
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/giraph/KEYS
> 
> The vote will run for 72 hours, until Monday 5pm PST.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jakob
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[Ross Gardler]

On 4 February 2012 01:47, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>

...

> if you'll recall Jim's message
> to the members in the past 2 years about "internal belly gazing" or
> "navel" gazing or whatever the word was when he was talking
> about the foundation as a whole and how even though there
> have been little blips over the years, it's still largely been a
> successful model.

+1


Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The
IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fledgling
communities.

My main message after reading this reply is to ask you to take the
weekend off. Have a think about what I have been saying.  In most of
my mails I have said I *like* your proposal. You are railing against
the wrong person.

What I am concerned about is not the intent but the execution. I just
don't like that your proposal pushes all the problem cases to someone
else. I like it even less that you don't seem to recognise these
problem cases exist.

You seem to think all podlings are plain sailing because you're lucky
enough to have been involved with some that are "easy" or have had
excellent mentors.  Not all are like that. If your proposal included a
higher barrier to entry and thus weeded out the hard cases then I
might see things differently. But you don't appear to be doing that
and I'm concerned that the hard cases will end up with the board who
will then seek to push it back down to ComDev.

You've now stated that you are willing to go more slowly than
originally proposed. This is a good thing. This means you will give
yourself time to find those hard cases and ensure there is a safety
net for them (or a barrier to entry, whichever is more appropriate).

Enjoy your weekend

Ross

Ross

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Franklin, Matthew B.]

On 2/3/12 9:28 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
 wrote:

>On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> 
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
 
> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is
>very
> tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
> micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects
>than
> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation
>is
> simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).
 
 As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also
removes much of the oversight and practically all of the help and
support.  
>>> 
>>> One of my problems is that most of the biggest fans of micromanagement
>>> and endless debate here at incubator spend nearly no time looking over
>>> the graduated projects throughout the foundation to ensure they are
>>> being overseen.  If that doesn't happen, the ASF will suffer the death
>>> of 1000 fractures.
>>> 
>>> This proposal suggests that every project throughout the ASF needs the
>>> support of the ASF's members, that incubating projects simply need to
>>> pay extra attentions to each and every one of those requirements at
>>> first, in order to prove they are likely to succeed.  Then they can
>>> move on to operating as a full TLP, going back to the very same
>>>resources
>>> they enjoyed during their incubation during the rough patches.
>> 
>> Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each
>>podling be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the
>>authority and responsibility they are missing today. You don't need to
>>blow away the IPMC to fix this problem.
>
>So, let me get this straight.
>
>"Make incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they
>are missing today?"
>
>Sounds a ton like my existing proposal. With some kitchen sink (the IPMC)
>added in.
>
>If incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they lack
>have today, there is
>no IPMC.

Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
community has demonstrated viability.  Having watched the Rave community
(and myself) grow into the Apache way under the incubator, I can tell you
that we needed time to figure out who we as a community were before we
were ready to have any authority.  I will also say that we wouldn't have
been able to grow as quickly if there wasn't something like this community
to watch and engage with as needed.  If every project came as essentially
a TLP, we lose some of the teaching advantages that the incubator
currently offers.  

I do agree with some of your concerns and feel that we moved through this
early phase quickly and were ready to assume some authority; but, I can't
say that we were ready day 0.  I think your proposal perfectly targets
communities that have demonstrated that they are engaging in the Apache
Way; but, if you assume that, then what we need is a restructuring of the
incubator, not a dismantling of it.

In the end, I think you can meet your goals and maybe even reach some
approximation of for proposal, so long as you don't forget the valuable
parts of the incubator while planning the future.


>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>++
>Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>Senior Computer Scientist
>NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
>WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>++
>Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>++
>
>
>-
>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

Re: TL;DR

[Ross Gardler]

On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
>> ComDev."
>
> Ross, I'm not a candidate.  But I certainly don't believe that.

That's good to hear. I'm desperately trying to catch up with all this.
It is currently 2:48 AM and I should be in bed.

> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
> board.

That would be fine except that the board is not a subtle instrument of
mentoring. It's a sledgehammer. The board will not, I assume, spend
time working with incubating projects to help them resolve their
issues. They will say "go sort it out or get out".

The projects then turn to where?

I believe there are huge cracks in this proposal and it seems to me
that it will fall to ComDev (via the board) to close the gaps. Maybe
this is a good thing. But I as chair of that ComDev I want to fully
understand what is expected of our small committee.

I don't like that nobody has asked ComDev if it wants to change. It is
assumed that ComDev will take the documentation. When this was first
raised by Greg I raised concerns. Specifically ComDev was created to
manage GSoC and other such activities. As part of this it is supposed
to direct people to the right place. It is where newcomers come to
find the right committee list,  the right documentation pages or the
right mentor. It is not supposed to be the fountain of all knowledge.
We are a *very* long way from being where I want us to be in this
respect.

I don't like it that the supporters of this proposal are in denial
about the need for support for failing podlings. If it is not denial,
if the intention is that failing podlings will be culled then fine,
state it up-front so we know the issue has been considered (Bill, I
recognise, you did so in this mail, but you are not a candidate).

> Incubator is a many-too-layered onion today, and it
> seems people keep trying to wrap Chris's proposal in more layers of
> Onion, because it is insufficiently complex to result in 100 people
> arguing with one another for days on end.

I don't know who "people" are, but like Chris you seem to be
attributing "peoples" opinions to me. Show me where I have said we
need the IPMC? Show me where I have said I don't support this
proposal? Show me where I have said we need more layers?

All I have said, repeatedly in a number of different ways, is that the
plan is incomplete and I am concerned that it will be ComDev that has
to pick up the pieces because this proposal removes all other possible
support channels when the VP + mentors channel fails.

I just want someone to address *my* issue as ComDev chair directly.

Benson came closest quite some mails ago when he highlighted that the
proposal means we need to vet mentors more, but I see nothing in the
proposal that covers this.

Ross

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ross Gardler]

On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 wrote:
...

>> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>>
>> Committee:  Previous responsibility   <--->   Revised responsibility
>> _   ___           __
>>
>> -
>
> Great idea!
>
> I've added this to the proposal:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> Ross: I think the table shows what I think ComDev should take over.

Thanks, that covers the procedural issues.

And when things go wrong with the mentoring process who spots this?
Who fixes it? Who is maintaining the standards with respect to IP
management?


Ross

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: TL;DR

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> 
>>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>>> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
>>> ComDev."
>> 
>> Ross, I'm not a candidate.  But I certainly don't believe that.
> 
> That's good to hear. I'm desperately trying to catch up with all this.
> It is currently 2:48 AM and I should be in bed.
> 
>> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
>> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
>> board.
> 
> That would be fine except that the board is not a subtle instrument of
> mentoring. It's a sledgehammer. The board will not, I assume, spend
> time working with incubating projects to help them resolve their
> issues. They will say "go sort it out or get out".
> 
> The projects then turn to where?

Themselves? Just like any other project does. And then the
board turns to them, if necessary. But themselves, mostly.

> 
> I believe there are huge cracks in this proposal and it seems to me
> that it will fall to ComDev (via the board) to close the gaps. Maybe
> this is a good thing. But I as chair of that ComDev I want to fully
> understand what is expected of our small committee.

Ross, there are huge cracks in any proposal. I listed something like
5 steps, and some high level topics. Incubator proposals themselves
have huge cracks in them. My proposal was my attempt at doing something
constructive, and in response to a request raised by Bertrand.

So please, stop using FUD as a tactic to raise concern about
this proposal. Sure, there are concerns. There's tons of emails
on list about them. But that doesn't preclude moving forward, 
and you've said that you are OK with it moving forward, so long
as it's incremental. So what are we bantering about?

> 
> I don't like that nobody has asked ComDev if it wants to change.

Greg asked you directly if ComDev wants to change. I also mentioned
the ComDev PMC in several of my emails, including my proposal and
in my original reply to Roy.

You are subscribed
to the Incubator list, I've seen you reply to all these emails, you are
the chair of the ComDev PMC. That nobody "sent an email to the
ComDev" list has not prevented anyone (including yourself) from
doing so as well. 

I'm sorry I haven't "started a thread" over there on ComDev: I'll do 
so after I take the break you suggested I do this weekend. Which
I will (from Apache Incubator stuff). However, I'll be around, working
on other ASF stuff not involving this :)

> It is
> assumed that ComDev will take the documentation. When this was first
> raised by Greg I raised concerns. Specifically ComDev was created to
> manage GSoC and other such activities. As part of this it is supposed
> to direct people to the right place. It is where newcomers come to
> find the right committee list,  the right documentation pages or the
> right mentor.

That's all I'm suggesting, Ross. But that you take the Incubator 
documentation too and just point folks to the existing site even
which we can leave up.

> It is not supposed to be the fountain of all knowledge.
> We are a *very* long way from being where I want us to be in this
> respect.

I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear in my proposal that I don't
expect you guys to be the fountain of all knowledge. I don't.

> 
> I don't like it that the supporters of this proposal are in denial
> about the need for support for failing podlings. If it is not denial,
> if the intention is that failing podlings will be culled then fine,
> state it up-front so we know the issue has been considered (Bill, I
> recognise, you did so in this mail, but you are not a candidate).

I don't know how to make it any more clear than I have, but I 
suppose it could get lost in all the emails on this subject. Here's
your definitive statement: failed podlings should be culled.  Done.

> 
>> Incubator is a many-too-layered onion today, and it
>> seems people keep trying to wrap Chris's proposal in more layers of
>> Onion, because it is insufficiently complex to result in 100 people
>> arguing with one another for days on end.
> 
> I don't know who "people" are, but like Chris you seem to be
> attributing "peoples" opinions to me.

Nope, not you. You're just the recent guy to chime in, so you think
it has to do with you. It doesn't, Ross, it really doesn't. I respect you
wholeheartedly. You rock. 

> 
> All I have said, repeatedly in a number of different ways, is that the
> plan is incomplete and I am concerned that it will be ComDev that has
> to pick up the pieces because this proposal removes all other possible
> support channels when the VP + mentors channel fails.

It's not my intention that that happen. That's why I (perhaps stupidly)
volunteered to actually make sure this proposa

Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

[Mattmann, Chris A (388J)]

Hi Ross,

On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>  wrote:
> ...
> 
>>> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>>> 
>>> Committee:  Previous responsibility   <--->   Revised responsibility
>>> _   ___   __
>>> 
>>> -
>> 
>> Great idea!
>> 
>> I've added this to the proposal:
>> 
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>> 
>> Ross: I think the table shows what I think ComDev should take over.
> 
> Thanks, that covers the procedural issues.
> 
> And when things go wrong with the mentoring process who spots this?

The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the board
during the board report. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs.

> Who fixes it?

The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the board,
or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs.

> Who is maintaining the standards with respect to IP
> management?

How much work is there maintaing them? What's left to do?

Arguably, legal and the Legal Committee have a hand in this, no?
I'm not sure it was entirely managed by the IPMC before.

Cheers,
Chris

P.S. Good questions above, I added them (and my suggestions for them)
to the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[Ralph Goers]

On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling 
>> be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and 
>> responsibility they are missing today. You don't need to blow away the IPMC 
>> to fix this problem.
> 
> So, let me get this straight.
> 
> "Make incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they are 
> missing today?"
> 
> Sounds a ton like my existing proposal. With some kitchen sink (the IPMC) 
> added in.
> 
> If incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they lack 
> have today, there is 
> no IPMC.

Why?  The IPMC's role never should have been about approving membership or 
releases in the podling. It should be about making sure they are getting 
sufficient help from the ASF in the form of mentors, legal advice, best 
practices, community building, etc. Yes, every project needs that but not to 
the degree a project new to the ASF does. If the mentors go missing or have a 
situation change where they need to bow out then having an IPMC there to help 
find new mentors is a much better situation then them simply reporting they are 
short on mentors to the board.

The basic difference here between what you have suggested and what I'm saying 
is that the VP, Incubator is not an individual trying to do that but a team.  
It also means that podlings are still not quite full-fledged TLPs but darn 
close in that the IPMC still may want reports solely so they can determine if 
any assistance is needed.

Ralph


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
> 
> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
> community has demonstrated viability.

I think that everyone here agrees.  These would not be 'full PMC's... the
ASF has a general 'set your own policies, hands off until it's broke' policy
towards projects.

Nobody is suggesting that an incoming 'project under incubation' would be
free of such rules, policies or oversight.  Where usual TLP's are free to
set the most flexible policies that suit their participants, any project
under incubation has a more stringent set of ComDev defined 'best practices'
that they must and will follow.  If as a full TLP they decide a tweak here
or there help their community, it's up to the board to permit that.  And
generally, the board is flexibly permissive.

But with one Champion not of the project itself, but of the ASF, and several
additional mentors/overseers/ombudsmen, no incubating effort is going to
enjoy the free reign that TLP's have.  If only all projects had that sort
of supervision, the foundation would be quite secure in knowing that all
projects are running as non-factional, non-partisan and non-commercial
efforts to create software for the public good.

Good concerns to raise, but i think they are unfounded in light of the
current proposal[s].

Bill

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The
> IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fledgling
> communities.

The IPMC never served that purpose.  Projects were scuttled even in
its first year.

The IPMC served to take the complexity of bringing in new code off of
the board of directors.  Little more.

The IPMC in turn replaced Jakarta as the repository of interesting
experiments that might or might not fly, and similarly replaced Jakarta
as the home of vague and uncertain direction for new efforts.  Nothing
more.

A large percentage of the first 25 incubating efforts are failures,
not because of the incubator, but in spite of it.  The incubator
failed to increase the success rate of the average effort.

And the board would have failed in bringing in new efforts, and the
Incubator would have failed as spectacularly as Jakarta, except that
Chris and others recognize the few good bits to be gleaned from the
whole experiment, and can relieve the board of the majority of the
headaches it was avoiding, in partnership with ComDev.

We now not only internalize, and can voice the process, but we have
documented the process.  Anyone can read it.  Any member can help
mentor it, and point people to the appropriate docs.

The incubator truly is done.  It is the most public, most ineffective
old boys club ever to infest OSS.  It has digested and documented all
of the useful bits, and persists in infernally arguing over the rest
of the undocumented and mostly irrelevant bits.  It does so in a very
embarrassingly public way.

There are three memes to associate with those who resist the change
that Chris has correctly proscribed;

 1. Lack of control is hard.  We all want authority.  The incubator
gave every member a podium and soapbox to stand upon and speak
across with authority.  And even in discord and disagreement, we
are ASF members, so clearly we individually know better.  [Given
the number of ASF members leaving the incubator recently, one
might question that.]

 2. Fear of missteps is hard.  We've watched every project at the ASF
teeter, occasionally trip, and rarely but significantly fall upon
their 'face' due to missteps.  So it's hard to give up control
because we know better how to avoid all that.  [The administration
and day to day activity of incubator would suggest we don't].

 3. Risk of failure is hard.  There will be projects which are going
to fall flat whether the incubator provides them 24x7 counseling
or makes them do all the work themselves.  There is nothing that
the present IPMC does which alleviates or even mitigates this fact.
[In spite of everyone's best intentions.]

The incubator is a classic story of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
There is no more added value which can be offered by the situation
at the incubator today.  The results of the incubator in terms of
documentation and process are excellent.  It's time to eliminate the
differentiation between 'not yet a project' and 'a full project too
long neglected' and focus all ASF resources across the board at all
of the projects, incubating and established, and stop wasting time
hoping that some special sauce only from the back kitchen makes that
difference.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: TL;DR

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 2/3/2012 9:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr.  wrote:
> 
>> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
>> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
>> board.
> 
> The projects then turn to where?

That is the question to answer :)  We are not the Savior Himself, we
are not going to solve every problem, we are kidding Ourselves if we
believe otherwise.

The established, non-incubating projects then turn to where?

Answer that question, and you've solved the *ENTIRE* riddle :)


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org