On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC. There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation). A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes to a vote. On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and unbiased critical validation going on. So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project. As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes, releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance.
the only downside to this plan would be to create YAR (yet another role). we already have sponsor, champion and mentor. it's hard enough to explain these without adding another one to the list. so, i'd probably prefer to reuse the mentor role. IMHO a successful incubation requires at least one mentor to adopt an active role. this is akin to the role that a chair plays in a standard project. if a distinction is needed between mentors then perhaps the initial ppmc (consisting only of mentors) could elect a ppmc chair who would adopt this more active mode. this would also allow (in time as the ppmc matures towards the end of the incubation) the chair to stand down to be replaced by a non-mentor and adopt a more passive role. - robert
