stratos-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sanjiva Weerawarana <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] probationary TLP experiment
Date Sun, 21 Jul 2013 04:29:13 GMT
Looks like there was no follow-up to this. Ross are you still on track to
put this forward?


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ross Gardler <>wrote:

> During the proposal phase for the Stratos podling I floated the idea of
> the IPMC using the podling to experiment with a more streamlined incubation
> process.
> It is not my intention to drive this experiment. Ant Elder expressed a
> desire to explore the idea during recent discussions among the IPMC. Whilst
> we were drawing up the Stratos proposal I asked Ant if he would be willing
> to lead the experiment. He agreed.
> In this mail I will summarize the relevant parts of the discussion thread
> on the list. The intention is to give Ant a
> starting point for the discussions here. It's up to the Stratos community
> to ensure the experiement does not limit the project in any way and up to
> Ant to drive the experiment for the IPMC. Naturally, the IPMC mentors will
> be a very important part of defining the model and feeding back on the
> experiment to the IPMC. I'll be lad to help evaluate as an IPMC member too.
> Chris' original skeleton proposal is at [1]. This outlines who is
> responsible for what in the new model. I'll remind the team that the board
> has not discussed the proposals here and a number of board members have
> expressed concern about it, while a couple are actively pushing for it.
> The following specific questions were raised during discussions. These
> will need to be addressed in any proposal.
> # Who's responsible for monitoring the probation, the IPMC or the board?
> This is perhaps the biggest potential area for pushback is moving
> oversight for the project to the board. Going to board certainly bypasses
> the problem of the IPMC often getting in the way of efficient process but
> it also removes the valuable input that some members of the IPMC often
> provide. Furthermore, should there be a problem it means it is the board
> that must fix the problem. Podling mentoring is not, traditionally, a role
> the board has ever taken on (fixing broken communities is not the same as
> mentoring fledgling communities).
> Note that one Director explicitly stated that he will vote -1 on any
> proposal that has a "podling" reporting directly to the board. This doesn't
> mean it won't be approved by the board, but it does mean it will be
> rigorously discussed.
> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation begins?
> We dodged this question in the discussion thread  by saying we'd go to
> podling status first. I guess defining this is part of defining the scope
> of the experiment.
> # What minimum criteria does a probationary TLP have to meet to stay in
> good graces?
> Here I suggested the criteria would be the same as a TLP. The problem is
> understanding whether we have that documented anywhere. The IPMC has
> addiitonal requirements (e.g. keep the meta-data up-to-date) whilst the
> board has, for the last 12 months or so, been pushing to have TLPs provide
> some of the same meta-data (e.g. last release date, last committer
> addition, last PMC addition).
> I suggest trying to come up with using the same criteria for TLPs,
> podlings and pTLPs. Where podlings will have a lower set f expectations
> (i.e. no need to have voted in any committers yet, pTLPs have voted in a
> committer in the last six months but may not have done an approved release
> and TLPs should have a fairly regular flow of committers and releases).
> Note these "metrics" ought not be fixed, they should be seen as guidelines.
> A project with no recent releases that continues to report and answer user
> queries may just be mature, for example.
> One measure can be the pTLP PMC membership. Initially it would be only the
> project mentors and champion. Over time active committers from the initial
> committer list are voted into the PMC (recognising merit). So we then have
> a possible measure, if there are 3 members of the pTLP from the initial
> committer list then there are now sufficient binding votes for the project
> to operate as a TLP.
> While writing this I realised that we might want to propose an interim
> step in the incubation process. e.g. start as a podling, move to pTLP when
> certain criteria are met (e.g. >3 active binding votes) and then TLP. I've
> not thought this through, just an idea you might consider.
> Another commentator observed that "It would probably be good to be clear
> on what are the exact characteristics that make this podling pTLP worthy
> for the future.  For example, the number of ASF veterans in its ranks." - a
> good observation. The danger here is creating an "us" and "them"
> environment. Perhaps the podling -> pTLP -> TLP idea resolves this - not
> sure.
> # What happens if the probationary TLP is not in good graces?
> I don't see this as being any different from a TLP. For a TLP the board
> says "fix it", if it isn't fixed they clear the decks and invite the
> remaining PMC to fix it. If it still isn't fixed it gets axed. What needs
> to be defined is who provides these "fix it" ultimatums and when.
> Please be *very* careful here. When we set up the IPMC we said the IPMC
> would do this - that's the main failure point now. It is mob rule. If a
> pTLP reports to board then it's easy, but if reporting to the IPMC it is
> harder.
> Note, a Director said " the Board will need a *definition* of
> probation. This is more than just a wiki page. I believe it needs to
> be a page laid down in www.a.o/dev/ that defines the constraints laid
> down upon a "pTLP"" I believe answering the above question will provide
> this.
> # What bits must absolutely be done before probation completes?
> Here I don't see any reason for it to be different to podling graduation
> (proven ability to be open to new community members, properly vetted
> release).
> # How do we maintain the "podling" brand?
> People are familiar with the concept of a podling. The press understands
> the difference between a TLP and a podling. We must not lose this
> distinction. The Apache brand is valuable because of our high quality bar.
> If we dilute that quality by allowing projects to claim they are official
> before they understand what is required of an ASF project we run the risk
> of damaging the brand for all projects.
> So there you go. I hope I've done a reasonable job of summarizing a 55+
> mail thread.
> Good luck!
> Ross
> [1]

Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.;
email:; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880 | +1
650 265 8311

Lean . Enterprise . Middleware

View raw message