Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> I can easily see a small group of >> people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. >> I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution >> to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be >> handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) > > I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, > but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared > to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other > ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be > on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that > those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys > are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that > organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of > ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help > shepherd them in just the way it works today. You mention also "No need for the position anymore. Just another report to have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1." What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to "Fill this in, and we'll submit these things". This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution in their lives, the VP is there to assist. The VP keeps the "files" on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter "Your proposal should state" formal documentation. Think in terms of ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic cop, but a tourist guide. It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting. So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation. It can't be left in a hundred different hands to drop. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
