Hi Caleb - I am glad that it is useful for your projects.
I think that the use of it that you describe is valuable. It should be used as guidance and interpreted by the mentors for each podling. "These sort of metrics can be used to indicate health in this way or that" - this is different from "these specific metrics must be met". We can certainly articulate requirements but they should be more specific to behaving in accordance to "the apache way" then dictating very specific community decisions or milestones. As mentor training, guidelines, etc - this is quite valuable and should help in guiding podlings to graduation rather than deciding whether they graduate or not. thanks, --larry On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Caleb Welton <cwel...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However... > > Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly > incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very > useful. It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a > community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive > development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we > need to be moving towards. > > Especially starting with an established team working on close source > project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and > entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into > the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to > help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide > guidance. For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively > encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides > useful guidance. > > If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you > suggest improving it to account for differences in communities? Are there > particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that > are missing? > > Regards, > Caleb > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here. > > > > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria > > checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually > develop > > more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked. > > > > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of > natural > > growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done > > artificially. > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik < > ro...@shaposhnik.org> > > > wrote: > > > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet). > > > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me > > explain > > > why. > > > > > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@ > > > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another > > > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all > > > projects to complete. > > > > > > We should not be trying to force rote learning. Every community is > > > different. > > > > > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more > > > overhead. Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly > > > is against what we should be about. I believe that the IPMC should be > > > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from > > > the full projects. To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is > > > fair - but, additional paperwork is not. -- justin > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
