+1000. My view too and with my support too.
-----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:42 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> Subject: my pTLP view >Roman kicked off a query about "next steps", with links to several wiki >pages on possibilities. The "IncubatorV2" page which describes a >"probationary TLP" is nothing like I have thought about. > > >In my mind, a pTLP looks *exactly* like any other PMC. They report >directly to the Board, they have infrastructure like any other project >(eg. >FOO.apache.org <http://FOO.apache.org>). But they have two significant >differences: > > >1. probationary text is prominent, much like we require "incubating" to >be prominent in various locations/messages for podlings > > >2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members. committers can be >chosen however the community decides. but the *project* is reviewed by >people with (hopefully/theoretically) experience with the Foundation and >its views on communities > > >That's it. By creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then they >can groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them >to the PMC. The Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can >do whatever it wants in that regard. > > >The Board might not accept a pTLP resolution because it wants more >greybeards on there, to help the community. Removing the "probationary" >label, is up to the pTLP to request, and the Board to approve. It is >usually pretty obvious when a community has > reached that point, if you are talking about active ASF/PMC Members. But >the Board would apply its own level of trust. > > >There is a big element here, which didn't exist 12 years ago: the Board's >ability to review many projects. Before the Incubator, there weren't that >many projects. The Directors didn't have a lot of experience with a lot >of breadth. Nowadays, we review > the work of *dozens* of projects every month. If one is a pTLP instead >of a regular TLP? Not a big deal. They have some operational >restrictions, but the report should be showing us a typical Apache >community. > > >The other aspect is IP clearance and management, which also didn't exist >a dozen years ago (and the Incubator was basically started in response to >some IP problems). We have a much better understanding there. Today, we >have the Incubator performing that, > but no reason we can't have pTLPs managing that process. We file "forms" >about clearance with the Incubator, but really: that should be filed >$somehow defined by the VP of Legal Affairs (and *that* position/process >didn't exist until years after the Incubator > was established). > > >TLPs are a recognition of a community. We can create probationary >communities, supported by ComDev, Legal, other communities, and reviewed >by the Board. > > >Speaking as a Director of the ASF, if a Resolution arrived on the Board's >Agenda to create such a pTLP, then I would be supportive. The pTLP >construct is independent of the Apache Incubator. Anybody is free to >define how they want to approach it, and then > ask the Board if they are willing to try it. > > >Cheers, >-g > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
