On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) > <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>... >> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think >> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least >> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role >> in 6 months (or sooner, if required?) IOW, we accept my proposal asi-is. >> Then in 6 months, we'll see how it's working out, and I'll tell you what, >> if we need an Incubation VP then, I'll be all for it, and even willing to >> sign >> up for it. > > With my Director hat on, I would vote to keep the Incubator VP and > only eliminate it when it is demonstrated to be of no value. As I > mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that > require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the > podling-TLP or the Board. The Board has enough to do without trying to > *also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press, > etc.
With my Director's hat on, I certainly wouldn't dismiss the proposal out of hand. As Bill pointed out previously, the amount of lines in the monthly board agendas won't materially change. What I care most about is addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to which feedback can be directed for each report. Podlings typically have multiple ASF members assigned to them (three is not an atypical number). I believe that the responsibility for verifying release processes, check on podling branding and press is already assigned to these members. If a podling (with the support of the mentors) votes to assign a non ASF-member as the chair, I am OK with that too as long as there are still plenty enough people monitoring the development of the podling. I'll name three concerns / items to be addressed: First, having the board vote on the creation of each podling is a bit too heavy weight. I for one would prefer that that continue to be delegated. Second, the board is not the appropriate vehicle for fine tuning / micro-managing individual projects, much less podlings. A podling that consistently fails to report or fails to address issues identified by the board should expect one or more of: a new chair, people added or removed from the committee, of for the committee to be dissolved entirely. Having a supportive resource (whether that resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not) remains important. Third, we started to move towards a point where having commit access to a podling means commit access to all the incubator. The proposal will need to cover how that is either going to change or how that would be expected to work. > Cheers, > -g - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
