Thanks Ross. Good point. And it has been long enough ago that people might be able to look at it a bit more dispassionately.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > With respect to " I hope that we can manage that a bit by pushing to > recognize common points of reference, move on to points difference and only > then start discussing solutions." I remind everyone of a perfect starting > point for this - perhaps we can focus on constructively updating > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:26 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Incubation capacity > > I think that this is an excellent analysis. > > The (gut) feeling I have about scarce resources are: > > 1) me. As Marvin noted, I am a failure mode as much as a contributor > lately. This is largely due to my crazy travel schedule combined with lots > of short term deliverables. Marvin has lightened that load enormously with > the report group and I see that as a good way forward > > 2) mentors. As Zukka mentions, the number of mentors is roughly constant > if you subtract away those who are MiA > > > I worry that the lull that others have noted in drama level may be > increasing again. I hope that we can manage that a bit by pushing to > recognize common points of reference, move on to points difference and only > then start discussing solutions. > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:50 PM Marvin Humphrey > > <mar...@rectangular.com> > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@zitting.name> > > wrote: > > > > It sounds like ruminations about the Incubator are on the increase > > again, > > > > > > I hope that we can make use of some of this bursting energy and > > > channel > > it > > > into incremental improvements. > > > > > > The Incubator is a stable platform, and it has been functioning well > > > by historical terms, and with blessedly low drama compared to a few > > > years > > ago. > > > My impression is that frustration with the institutional resistance > > > of Incubator to change is skewing impressions of how well it is > > > doing its > > job of > > > incubating podlings. > > > > Yes, we're far from the drama of 2011. > > > > > > I believe the way the Incubator is organized sets an upper bound > > > > on the number of podlings it can effectively manage. Based on > > > > experience and historical data > > > > (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fi > > > > ncubator.apache.org%2fhistory%2f&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40mic > > > > rosoft.com%7c16c58f0566a547707af408d2d3868e32%7c72f988bf86f141af91 > > > > ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=6DkLFL2cvSI%2bi9cpO%2fbrzR6vmzQE4xKDInxbq > > > > %2b270bE%3d *) I believe > > this > > > > limit is somewhere around 30 podlings. > > > > > > I'm curious, Jukka. Why 30? > > > > I don't have a firm theory on why this is happening, only some key > > observations: > > > > * The entry rate of new podlings has been amazingly constant > > throughout the existence of the Incubator even though the total number > > of open source projects has been growing exponentially for much of > > this time. > > > > * The "limit" was first reached in 2006 during which the board first > > pushed back on Incubator reports and the current monthly 1/3 reporting > > schedule was adopted and the process of retiring dormant podlings was > > adopted. > > > > * The Incubator stayed at or slightly above the 30 podlings limit > > until around mid-2010 after which many podlings started getting stuck, > > leading to the crisis of late 2011. > > > > * We solved that problem with a concentrated effort in 2012 that > > brought the Incubator back to around 30 active podlings, a level that > > stayed mostly stable for the next two years. > > > > * The number of current podlings is again growing, and some of the > > issues that have shown up recently remind me of the problems seen five > > years ago. > > > > It could be that I'm just selectively interpreting history to match my > > theory, but from a systems perspective it does look as if the > > Incubator indeed has a structural bandwidth cap that probably feeds > > into and limits the entry rate. > > > > > What are the scarce resources? > > > > Some possible answers: > > > > * Mailing list. There is only so much general@ traffic that a single > > IPMC member can reasonably process without starting to skip > > significant parts. > > > > * Mentors. The growth rate of the IPMC is fairly constant and, with > > most members becoming inactive over time, I believe the number of > > active mentors has not grown too much over the years. > > > > * Chair/Report Manager. Someone still needs to pay attention to > > everything that's going around, which I believe you and all other > > recent chairs agree is a daunting task. > > > > One could run some numbers to better quantify the above possibilities. > > > > > And how is this supposed degradation manifesting? > > > > The noise got loud enough to wake me up. :-) I don't have hard > > numbers, but we do have a couple of recent failures and it sounds like > > some people are getting concerned, which does remind me of early 2011. > > Of course the one thing you can learn from history is that things are > > never quite the same. > > > > > Additionally, I'll note that while we're at 43 or so podlings right > > > now, > > we > > > have multiple podlings about to retire (Droids, Kalumet, likely > > Corinthia) and > > > others about to graduate (Kylin, Groovy). > > > > Right, this might be just a fluke. > > > > BR, > > > > Jukka Zitting > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
