The Board is always the responsible party, but in the sense that you mean "responsibility in finding a fix", then I fully agree.
IMO, if a pTLP gets into the weeds, then the Board will just say "fix yourself within six months, or we dismantle you". Cheers, -g On Jun 15, 2013 2:58 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > That first sentence still doesn't parse, sorry ... > > I should have said I don't like the idea of the board taking > responsibility. I have no problem with it receiving reports directly. > > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity > On 15 Jun 2013 07:55, "Ross Gardler" <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > > > I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports > > for podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting > > that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of > cases. > > I'll expand on that in Chris' thread. > > > > I'll note that in this thread I answered the question of who Stratos > > should report to with the board, but I'll also note I don't expect the > > board to provide mentoring. That is a key difference between what I am > > proposing for pTLP and the original deconstruction proposal. > > > > Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity > > On 15 Jun 2013 05:05, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > >> >
