On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 13:56 Europe/Rome, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Hence, if the sponsor, as we said, shall be an Apache member, he is
already legally "safe", and does not need to be on the PMC. I doubt that
an Apache member that does his first incubation is knowledgeble as a PMC
member that has seen more than one.
actually, i can see a point in mentors/shepherds being on the pmc: they should be aware of procedural and policy discussions and decisions, and be able to provide input on how such will affect their podlings.
I still believe that the Incubation PMC doesn't make any sense at all.
The incubation PMC is seen by many (outsiders and insiders) as a useless PITA obstacle that the ASF decided to inflict to people to avoid rejecting projects alltogether.
- o -
Let's get back to the beginning: do we need an incubator?
Well, I've been oscilatting back and forth on this with yes/no mindset for the last several years. I have a long history of incubating ASF efforts and I think I know what I'm talking about, but still, I'm not sure.
Anyway, since there *is* obviously expansion pressure, there must be a way to let this pressure be kept on range, otherwise the foundation will blow up from the inside.
The question is: do we need "incubating practices" or an "incubation facility". I'm more and more convinced that we need practices and somebody that helps with them more than facilities.
- o -
Is this incubation facility a project?
No, damn. It's not. An ASF project is such when it produces code. The incubator is not a project, it's a task force, a service, a committee (much like the licensing, security and infrastructure committee)
- o -
How should this incubator work?
They way it works today, people, it's flawed, it's useless, counterproductive and painful.
Lenya, for example, is under incubation, but it's hosted on cocoon.apache.org. They recently had a legal problem. Which PMC is responsible for this? cocoon's or the incubator's? Who is to blame? Who, from the incubator PMC is watching over the cocoon PMC shoulders to know that everybody is doing just fine?
The incubation oversight should be performed by the PMC that is going to host that project, following the "incubation guidelines".
This worked magnificently well for java.apache.org, jakarta and xml. Why shouldn't work anymore?
The rationale is simple: volunteers work best if they have an itch to scratch. Tell me: any of the incubation PMC members had any itch to scratch about Lenya becoming an apache project? I'm sure not. So, do you really think you can help them more than the cocoon PMC can?
can I point out that some people on the PMC have *no* proven record of successful community bootstrapping? was that skill required in order to have a seat on that PMC? [no, one just had to volunteer for it]
- o -
Here is my proposal:
1) dismantle the incubation PMC
2) create an incubation committee, responsible of the creation and oversight of the "incubation guidelines", and provides help and suggestions for those PMC that are going thru incubation and need help in the process
3) incubation proposals have to come from the various PMCs and are discussed with the "incubation committee" before approval
[note: the fact that there is no single 'point of incubation entrance' should allow incubation proposals to arrive only when people already have a sponsor in the PMC]
This would allow the foundation to grow, yet remove the silly artifacts that this incubation PMC created.
comments?
-- Stefano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
