On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >... > Now, truth be told, I don't like the pTLP reporting to the board idea.
I see no problem whatsoever with the suggested pTLP reporting. Let me throw out a hypothetical counterpoint here... The Incubator gathers reports from all of its podlings. It reviews them, discusses some aspects with those podlings, and then it files a report with the ASF Board. Three paragraphs stating, "Hey. No issues. Everything is going great. Community is good. Legal is good. kthxbai." Would that fly with the ASF Board? Not a chance. The simple fact is that the Board *does* want to see reports from podlings. Those podlings will (hopefully) become part of the Foundation one day. The Board is *keenly* interested in what is going on, and how those podlings are doing. If you suggest a model of a total black box. Where *no* podling information escapes from the Incubator to the Board. And then one day... *poof!!* ... a graduation resolution appears before the Board. Do you honestly think the Board would just sign off on that? Again: not a chance. What this really means is: the Board wants to review podlings' progress and operations. I don't see how it can be argued any other way. So if that is true, then why does the IPMC need to be a middle man? Why not provide those reports from the podling directly to the Board? And why not get the podling directly engaged with the actual operation of the Foundation? About how to report to the Board? About shepherds, watching for commentary in the agenda, about committing to that agenda!, and about paying attention to board@ and its operations. If we want to teach new communities about how the ASF works, then why the artificial operation of the Incubator? Why not place them directly in contact with the *real* ASF? By all measures, Apache Subversion would have been a pTLP when it arrived at the Incubator. But we integrated very well into the ASF because there were Members, Directors, and other long-term Apache people who could answer "huh? what is a PMC Member? how does that map to our 'full committer' status? what are these reports?" ... and more. The close attention, and the direct integration with the Foundation, worked as well as you could expect. The Incubator did not provide much value, beyond what the extent Members were already providing (recall that we easily had a half-dozen at the time; I don't know the count offhand, but it was well past any normal podling). The Incubator may not provide value to certain projects that reach the pTLP bar (again: some thumbs-up definition of that is needed!), but it is *very* much required for projects/communities that are not as familiar with how we like to do things here. In this concrete case of Stratos, I personally (and as a voting Director) have every confidence in trying the pTLP approach. I outlined some areas that I believe the Board needs before accepting a pTLP, and so I'm looking forward to this experiment. I think it will turn out well. I do think we may be setting up some communities for anger, when the Board chooses to *not* grant pTLP status and refers the community to the Incubator. I really don't have a good answer there, especially around the future/obvious direction of "pTLP is only for the Old Boys Club and other insiders". Sigh. Can't be helped, I think. Anyhow. To the original point: pTLP reporting to the Board is practically speaking a no-brainer. Podlings generally report direct to the Board today, minus some intermediary stuff. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
