Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Steve,
Not actually sure we are disagreeing. Let me just add some thoughts and see where we get to...
Zut ... Australia really is at the end of the earth relative to France!
(Zut translated into Australian is B***** H***).
<GRIN>. Tell me about it. The time zones are playing havoc with me.
Bottom line - we are always dealing with individuals. The individual may change over time, but there is an individual that is responsible and therefore accountable.
Yes I'd agree with this. (And yes I did see Dogma :>).
But..... (see below)
Small change in wording. "If Ted stops doing his role as Shepherd, then I would see it as the responsibility of the XML Project PMC Chair" to step in and find someone else."Otherwise this is throwing all the responsibility back on a couple of people. To me the whole Apache concept is about community, so lets demonstrate what that means to the podlings.
If Ted stops doing his role as Shepherd, then I would see it as the responsibility of the XML project to step in and find someone else.
Yes - that I can live with (and even agree with :>), as it fits with the responsibility of the chair to the board.
But to me, that makes the XML PMC chair ultimately accountable. If I'm the CEO of an organisation (I wish), I delegate responsibility for overall marketting to a given area. However, if that delegation fails, it is myself that is held accountable to the board.
So the company as a whole looks to the marketting department to action what is necessary, but when it all fouls up the CEO holds the can.
I suspect we might be violently agreeing?
So far ... yes!
Absolutely 100% agree.My impression is that we are actually aiming towards the same thing but that what you thinking of as Sheperd is what I'm thinking of as Sponsor. There are a few other little things but I thought it best to get these two items clarified first.I think you are correct, that we are heading to
the same end, but I think it important to separate the sponsor of the original proposal
away from the incubation.
There are people who are visionaries. "I can see
why this is a great project and why it will be
a good fit for Apache". They can help a
candidate "sell" a proposal to Apache. Are they
necessarily the best person to help a project
through Incubation? Not so sure.
But hang in there for a moment and thing about separation of these roles. One role "A" is about responsible representation and guidance with a engagement that is implicit for the duration of incubation - for better or worse. Another role "B" is about vision, excitement, opportunity, enterprise. What the policies and procedures of incubation need is "A". What the project needs initially and on re-occurring occasions is a brilliant "B". But "B" is not the subject of concern of an incubation policy. I think "A" needs to be on the PMC and to represent the project and I think "B" needs to in the public face making sure that the value proposition is communicated. Tying "B" to a set of policies and procedures is the last thing you want. But it does mean you need to establish an "A" for the long haul.
Yes - I agree with this. Particularly on not tying
B to the policies and procedures. Keep this as
fluid as possible.
We are on sync on this!
:-)
That's what I tried to do in removing responsibility on Sponsor in the document, but with the actual intent of your paragraph below where you substitue sponsor with shepherd.
"A" == Respected and Recognized Sponsor
"B" == Director of Marketing
To me, that's what the very notion of a shepherd is - someone
who guards and protects the flock.
Substitute you idea of Shepard for Sponsor. Assume you have a Marketing Director in the wings and that you[r] Sponsor and Marketing Directory are secretly working together on a plan titled "72 hour Incubator Exit Strategy". Also assume that the Shepherd is the one to overcome (kind of like a VC Investor). He has final say - do you get the green light or not - so everything your Sponsor and your Marking Director do is to move the Shepherd along the path you would like. If you do this right - you have the ingredients backing you (a good project with a clean profile) then getting passed the Shepherd should not be a problem. Keep in mind that Shepherds are simple minded people that know a lot about sheep but don't know anything about what sheep actually think. Also keep in mind that the Shepherd can kill the sheep with reasonable cause. But if you have a Marketing Manager in the wings - and if the project is OK - you exit, the Shepherd gets sent home with a pat on the back and a round of cheese - and the sheep run around looking happy and content - the Marketing Manager drives off looking or a new challenge, and you lean back in you chair, look at the screen, smile, and say to yourself .... "it works".
I *think* this is what I was trying to do, but I
must have miscommunicated. When I updated the
document, I put a lot of the things that were in
there as "sponsor" onto Shepherd.
Yep, I noticed!
:-)
I see the shepherd as the person fulfilling the oversite
role and being bound (to the least extent possible!) by Incubation process and rule.
This is my understanding of your understanding (gosh I feel like a social worker). My understanding is driven by the assumption that the shepherd is put there by the Incubator PMC with best intentions, but you and I both know that ther best of intentions don't necessarily deliver what we want. I.e. while the Incubator PMC is acting in our interests, and a Shepherd my for all intensive purposes be doing the best he/she can, the dodling cannot depend on the Sheherd.
The sponsor (who intially did the vision thing)
still exists , and I would hope is still
involved, but this is a role that anyone can step
in and help on. No need to formalise - I don't
actually think you can, or that you would want to,
other than the initial submission. (The reason
for that is more to ensure someone is helping a
podling from the start, and to put a reasonable
bar on out of the blue solicitation.)
Its here that I'm floating over to the Incubator PMC view of he world. Your viewing sponsor as transient evangalist - I'm viewing sponsir as partner for the life of the incubation and the transient evangelist as n smart individuals you recuit along the way.
So where I was getting to was the shepherd is, as you indicate above, the formally bound individual.
But.... I do believe the shepherd should have an interest in seeing things succeed. I think if we have a shepherd who is a pure functionary, then you risk having nobody supporting the podling during the daily grind. Otherwise doesn't incubation just become an impartial test? If we have said we want to do something then I would want to give it as much of a chance as possible to succeed.
At a policy and procedure level I do not belive you can count on this. Irrespective of the good vibes you here from the incubator and the Apache communty - at a procedural level you are stuck with a shepherd who is shepherding for the only reason that he/she has been pushed and shoved into the role. This individual is for all practical purpuses a Incubator functionary - an obsticle to a valid podling - an obsticle to overcome. Given such a scenario, you and I both want the procedural oponent - our Sponsor - the knight in shinning armour who will save the day (not the marketing guy but out "legal" representative - a.k.a. Sponsor).
Think of this entire process as the establishment of a set of imutable procedures that will protect us from the breakdown of their system.
Thus you have the shepherd appointed by the sponsor PMC, but being bound by the Incubator PMC
rules and regs. (And I would imagine the incubator
would need to agree the choice.)
Which does not work in practice (with respect to current policy).
The Icubator PMC has been charged with the responsiblity of incubation. We have to give them the opportunity to do this. Your PMC, my PMC, neither are charged with this responsibility. All we can do it is establish a framework that ensures the integrity of the transition.
Does that sound fair?
Yes - providing we give the Incuabtor PMC due responsibility and ... we ensure that the policies and procedures protect us from potential absuse or neglect of said responsibilites by said PMC.
Cheers, Steve.
p.s. Who is someone terrible disappointed that you, an Australin to-boot, removed the so carefully and selectively prepared phrase "Incubator PMC meanderings" in you last wiki edit!
Will I ever forgive this guy?
;-)
<GRIN>. To be honest I couldn't resist, just to see whether I would get away with it (and I
didn't.)
LOL - ok, your forgiven!
:-)
Stephen.
Cheers, Berin
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
