[offlist] On 2/4/2012 7:29 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: > > On 2/4/12 12:28 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >>> >>> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority >>> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the >>> community has demonstrated viability. >> >> I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be 'full PMC's... the >> ASF has a general 'set your own policies, hands off until it's broke' >> policy >> towards projects. >> >> Nobody is suggesting that an incoming 'project under incubation' would be >> free of such rules, policies or oversight. Where usual TLP's are free to >> set the most flexible policies that suit their participants, any project >> under incubation has a more stringent set of ComDev defined 'best >> practices' >> that they must and will follow. If as a full TLP they decide a tweak here >> or there help their community, it's up to the board to permit that. And >> generally, the board is flexibly permissive. >> >> But with one Champion not of the project itself, but of the ASF, and >> several >> additional mentors/overseers/ombudsmen, no incubating effort is going to >> enjoy the free reign that TLP's have. If only all projects had that sort >> of supervision, the foundation would be quite secure in knowing that all >> projects are running as non-factional, non-partisan and non-commercial >> efforts to create software for the public good. > > I think the disconnect I was trying to point out is that the proposal > itself assumes that the new PMC is fully functional so long as at least 3 > ASF members are a part of it and the PMC chair is the champion. Taking > Rave as an example, we walked in the door with ~20 non-ASF member PPMC > members. Not that it would have happened in our instance, but I can > envision a case where a project enters the ASF and isn't forced to > understand how things are done here (bad releases, policies, etc). At > that point, the board is forced to step in and rectify the situation, when > the same outcome could have been avoided by gradually stepping the > community up in authority.
Just to clarify the same happens today at TLPs and there isn't a schema, so the drive to make things consistent would charge the board with solving this once for all incubating and full projectss at once - comdev docs will help. And podlings do fall off the rails without the IPMC noticing, so it is pretty clear that 'IPMC' oversight is something of a falacy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
