Hiya,
Nobody on the project has the bandwidth at the moment to take this on,
so +1 to put it dormant. If the bandwidth becomes available we will
re-open.
Cheers,
Berin
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I have forwarded into the santuario dev list to see what people
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
with the results. Don't like that answer? Then
Out of curiosity - has any such internal decision been made? I can
not find anything in either of the archives - private or dev.
Cheers,
Berin
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I will defer to those on the PPMC that had issues
with the list.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
OT: I dislike the current trend of people using +1, -1, for simple
conversations. It confuses people and should be reserved for votes.
The use of +1/-1 for conversations (as apposed to votes) is very common
through the ASF. I've always rather liked it personally.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
snip
As written, a Champion must be an ASF Member or Officer. Why? A Champion
actually has no specific rights. Can anyone express a reason why the role
should be restricted to a Member or Officer? One that comes to mind is as a
filter, but realistically, anyone can
Geez - for some reason I thought he already was!!!
+1
Cheers,
Berin
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
As part of reviving juice, can we please VOTE werner as a committer to
enable him to continue his offline work? [1]
Here's my +1.
thanks,
dims
[1] :
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On September 1, 2005 8:41:11 PM +1000 Berin Lautenbach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are far more checks already. To get a project approved you need a
full resolution signed by the board. A better analogy would be voting
on a
new PMC member. No PMC requires
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I am generally opposed to any of the suggestions that we add
more constraints to incubation (aside from a general constraint
of no new projects, which I can understand for infrastructure
reasons alone). What we need is more documentation, not more rules.
+1
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm not really clear what the approval process is here on the part of
the full Incubator PMC. Bill, do you know? Or, is it hidden on the
website somewhere? ;-) -- justin
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases%0D
Cheers,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On September 3, 2005 10:30:49 AM +1000 Berin Lautenbach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases%0D
I saw that, but it's not very helpful as it says: Such approval SHALL
be given only after the Incubator
I've been following this with a little bit of confusion. It strikes me
that there is a lot of reaction going on without really thinking through
the implications.
So just to stir the pot
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new
project
First - I'm +1 on this (with the concomitant committment to help out -
I'll even mentor if necessary, although my time is often limited at the
moment).
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This looks alright, but I have some questions. First, why isn't the WS PMC
sponsoring this as WS-TSIK?
The XML
+1 from here!
Cheers,
Berin
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Doug proposed this a week and change ago (bad timing to do such things
around major holidays :-)). So far we have support from Dain, Nicola Ken,
Doug, Eric Hatcher, Henning, Roy and myself.
Roy, Nicola Ken, and myself provide the minimum
It does look good.
Noel - make sure you do some heckling for me as well :.
Cheers,
Berin
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Cliff Schmidt wrote
If it's any use, you can download the slides at:
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2004/view/e_sess/5439
I'll be giving a similar presentation next
Neeraj Bajaj wrote:
Hello All,
I was wondering when can we start merging the JAXP 1.3 sources ? Merging
the code in branch/review/testing/committing to main trunk
would take time so at least from my side i would like to see this work
started as early as possible say from tomorrow. What is the
+1
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Here is the current text of the JCR proposal from
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/JcrProposal
Please cast your vote as +1 (yes), -1 (no), or something in between.
Vote ends 12pm (Noon) PDT -0700, Saturday, August 28, 2004.
Roy
1. Proposal for new project JCR
1.1.
+1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
See: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MyFacesProposal
[ ] Accept MyFaces into the Incubator
[ ] Reject MyFaces
Vote ends Midnight EDT (between Monday and Tuesday), Monday July 12, 2004.
--- Noel
-
+1 :.
Cheers,
Berin
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
The XMLBeans project has been actively developed in incubation for
about 10 months. During this time, the user and developer
community has continued to grow stronger, both in number,
diversity, and degree of cooperation. In addition, the
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
As per Cliff's previous email, files will be moved on www.apache.org/dist
and the XMLBeans website will be updated.
Since XMLBeans appears to be about to leave the Incubator, this needn't
apply to it, but as we examine Incubator policies, I'm wondering if we
should make it
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
There is a request that we approve clearly marked incubation distribution of
Lenya to help further community development. The request has the support
for Steven Noels and others in the Lenya community. There has been
considerable discussion on the state of the community in
Peoples,
The following lists provides my understanding (based on the projects
page on incubator.apache.org) of when the last status update was.
Projects with a ** have gone more than 3 months without any kind of
update. No Report means that the project *appears* (according to the
status file)
Peoples,
I have just created a PPMC list for Lenya
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Nobody is currently subscribed
(other than myself), but I have taken the liberty of setting Stefano and
Steven as moderators (at their Apache addresses).
Let me know if the moderators list is wrong or if anything else
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think there are some mis-understandings. Our documentation seriously lags
reality (volunteers to help would be appreciated), but even so, AFAIK, you
*never* needed to go to the Board before proposing entry to the Incubator.
Directors might be interested, but the issue of
+1. And very enthusiastic at that.
An absolutely heroic effort!
Cheers,
Berin
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
The Geronimo project has been in Incubation for almost 10 months. In
those 10 months, the Geronimo project has developed a community,
developed a new codebase in an open and
David,
Many thanks indeed.
I'm now a big +1 :.
Cheers,
Berin
David Sean Taylor wrote:
On Apr 23, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Guys,
I'm going to vote -1 here, until the status file is updated
addressing some of the original concerns.
Andrew Oliver raised a specific
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I've published the revised Incubator site with the newly revised Pluts
STATUS file for everyone to review:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/pluto.html
Does anyone have any outstanding questions/issues regarding Pluto's status?
I'm going to appear very thick here, for
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
As far as I know, those issues are mooted. More to the point, perhaps,
Pluto has been adopted and integrated into the new Portals project, which is
asking for its release, and they don't appear to have any Community
concerns. Do we have any questions about the TCK
Status report for JuiCE for the Incubator
JuiCE is just entering incubation, and is currently in the process of
starting up. We are currently waiting on CLAs from core developers to
enable us to get started.
* is the STATUS file up to date? (also post link)
Yes -
Have a look at
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo/index.html#How+do+I+get+Involved%3F
Cheers,
Berin
Poornima Gunasekar wrote:
Hi,
This is Poornima, Software Engineer. I wish to participate in the project
Apache-licensed implementation of the J2EE specification. Could you
The plan at the moment is to name the new product JuiCE. A question
to the incubator group - we have researched this name on the web, and
could not find any other cryptographic software that had this name.
There are of products on sourceforge - a blog tool [4] and a frontend to
mpg123 [5]
David,
Just to back up Noel's comments below, if you put something to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], we can all kick it around. At the end of the day - if
those in xml-commons think it's a good idea, then the chances are it
probably is, and we can make it happen!
Cheers,
Berin
Noel J. Bergman
David Crossley wrote:
By the way, the Incubator FAQ needs a statement on this topic.
Hmm. Yes - I think you're right. I'll do something about that!
Thanks!
Cheers,
Berin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
OK. I'll start off by nominating Noel (although I think that was
already done elsewhere?)
I'd also suggest we timebox this. Can we allow a week for nominations?
Then maybe a week for votes within the PMC?
Cheers,
Berin
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Candidates interested in the Incubator
Noel,
Moved to general (per your suggestion :),
ROFL - A chance for my favourite hobby horse! Where is the charter
for the Incubator? I started one some time back
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorCharterDraft
But could never really get any traction or interest.
A lot of
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 01:15, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
Where do I find that module? At least via anoncvs I can't find it and
(I think) I have only SVN and no CVS access.
Crap. Ok, just for the record, the SA guys have been ginea pigs with
respect to SVN only accounts. It looks like it's too
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
What is it we are voting access for here? Is it to the overall
logging project repository? To a CVS module for the log4net code that
is to be created?
I am inclined to create a new CVS module for log4net and for each
sub-project. If a log4-X committer wants to commit a
Leo Simons wrote:
IMHO, as long as a project still requires a point man (or
as long as the PMC still requires such a person in order to
be kept up to date of what is happening in the directory
project), the project is not ready for graduation.
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor
Aaron Bannert wrote:
It's a start. But you also need the landing PMC members.
What's a landing PMC member?
Where the code is to go into an existing project, then the PMC of
pre-existing project is the landing PMC. E.g. XML-Beans is set to enter
the XML project once it leaves the icnubator,
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Healthy ASF Projects are neither leaderless nor headless. They are run by
multiple heads -- individuals participating as peers -- converging on a
consensus. Sometimes things may take longer than one person acting on their
own, but it often means a better result, and it
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Now ... why not designate people beforehand to provide corrective action(s)?
Perhaps for the reasons that Sam is often quiet as a PMC Chair, or Greg is
very careful about which e-mail address he uses. Because they have found
that it *does* make a difference. Once you
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I'm confused by what you are saying. Do you believe there should
be one person in an authoritative position for each PPMC or not? I
am strongly against having roles within the ASF. Roles go against
the way
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
IIUC this is what ATM we agree upon:
The role of Mentor is a self-selecting title (eg. anyone wishing to
become a Mentor and has the title to be one as described in our policy
just adds themselves to the projects/index webpage + the project status
page and joins the
Aaron Bannert wrote:
Why must it be one person? The entire Incubator PMC is responsible, so
why should we limit this to one person?
Not saying there should be only one mentor (in fact I would argue
against it). But I do think it important to have *identified* mentors.
Having said that, I
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The current mechanism assumes that designated Mentors are the ones that
have decided to be there, and we may assume that is there are enough
Mentors, they will be there or tell us that they cannot do it anymore.
If we don't have explicit Mentors... how does it work?
Nicola/Noel et al,
I started playing with the PPMC text, just to wordsmith a tiny bit and
flesh out a few things, and realised I don't understand the entire
intent :.
I had been seeing the PPMC as the PMC to be - so to speak. I think
that is the case for the projects that will become TLPs,
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
will all developers be on a PPMC? I wouldn't think so - I would
have thought it would be like a normal TLP, where those who are
guiding the project (hopefully nearly all committers - but not
necessarily) will be on the PMC.
All active Committers should be on the PPMC,
Nicola,
I only have one overall thought (and you're going to think it remarkable
picky, especially at this late stage :). As an aside - is this on the
wiki somewhere where we can do a bit of wordsmithing (if you don't
object at such a late date :. Am also happy to play around once it is
on
Cancel question about wiki - should have looked first.
Apologies - and a very Merry Christmas!
Cheers,
Berin
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola,
I only have one overall thought (and you're going to think it remarkable
picky, especially at this late stage :). As an aside
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
The notion of automatically accepting projects already accepted by a
sponsor seems like a good one. It's not very clear from the process
docs that this is the case.
As said before, the docs are in need of a major overhaul. Hopefully,
somewhere in
Ceki,
Realising that you don't necessarily need someone from the Incubator,
I'd still be interested in helping out with the log4cxx piece. I need
something like this elsewhere, so it seems like a perfect match.
Cheers,
Berin
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Hello,
We are looking for a member of
Sam Ruby wrote:
The inevitable result of these two factors is an interminable discussion
on the naming of a project.
IMHO, the right answer is *not* to buck this up to the incubator PMC, or
to members, or *gasp* to the board. A much better approach would be:
1) Have the incubator PMC
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola,
I suppose the only slight reservation would be who is accountable?
The old Fred Bloggs is looking after that can kick in. I think the
Incubator PMC also wants to be able to hold people accountable for
inubation activities. Gets
Nicola,
I suppose the only slight reservation would be who is accountable? The
old Fred Bloggs is looking after that can kick in. I think the
Incubator PMC also wants to be able to hold people accountable for
inubation activities. Gets harder with multiple people.
Does it have to be
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Hmmm... policy... guidance... really, I may seem paranoid, but they
don't spark a clear distinction in my head.
Guideance to me is not a word that I would take to mean that something
is a set of rules. It definitely sparks a very clear distinction for me.
I want
BTW - Have checked changes in - how do I update the site?
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
My understanding was that there will always be a PMC (or
the board) that accepts a candidate on behalf of the ASF.
Where there is no Sponsor, the Incubator PMC acts in that
role and votes to accept the candidate
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
In essence, I agree that we should not change the current meaning of
Sponsor, that is exactly what you mean.
Ahh - violent agreement :.
Absolutely not...for the policy. In the policy document it is only
mentioned right at the start as there being a requirement for an
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang,
Okay, okay, I'm exaggerating. Its real cool there's people
volunteering to write all this stuff, and the drafts are not
*that* formal. I'm just suggesting we make it easy for ourselves
and don't try to write perfect and waterproof docs. We just
need good enough.
back to
From: Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a Sponsoring
PMC) who champions a new candidate prior to being accepted by a Sponsor.
Who has any idea what this actually means without looking up the
definition? Why not call it what it is:
From: Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remind me, please. With respect to Sponsor, why not just say that the
Sponsor is either a Member or a PMC (via the PMC Chair or a Member who is a
PMC member)? If a PMC is bringing a project for incubation, it would be the
Sponsor. If a Member is
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Because of this, I would suggest that we remove the draft status on
our policy docs and simply use them as our guide, that will change in
need without having to go through tedious votes when there is good
consensus.
Objections?
None - although by taking the draft off
Peoples,
In line with what I have seen in the last couple of weeks on preferred
terms I have updated the Policy/Process and Roles and Responsibilities
documents so that we have :
Champion (was Sponsor) - the Apache Member (or member of a Sponsoring
PMC) who champions a new candidate prior to
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The name Sponsoring Entity is wierd, and the more I think of it, the
more it seems artificial.
Yup. It was the best I could think of at the
time :.
What we need is something that sponsors the project, and will accept it,
and someone that
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
BTW, I wrote two mails about it on this list, did you miss them? I mean,
are we still having problems with mails?
I seem to be getting the odd mail bounced after five days of trying?
Cheers,
Berin
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Here is the layout I am now working on:
- build/ (the built site)
- site/ (the site docs)
- resources/ (forms,project logos,etc)
In the root we will have:
skinconf.xml (needed for forrest)
forrest.properties (needed for forrest)
status.xml
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
cycle. If the project chooses to copy the STATUS items into an issue
tracker so that they'll receive periodic reminders of outstanding items,
that would be their choice, but the only official document would be the
STATUS file. Since you want to use XML, if the XML were
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Whoops. There is a line in there :
Where capitalised, these terms are to be used as per the definitions
found in RFC 2119 (Reference).
So I think I was thinking (which is a lot of thinking) the same thing :.
Will fix.
Fix what? Looks like you already did it. I was
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Since there seems to be agreement that we should have some sort of
Mentor reporting to the PMC, it would be easy for Mentors to update the
STATUS file at every report.
Does this sound reasonable?
+1.
One is a tool, the other is the processed information. The PMC
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
iproject name is an effort undergoing incubation at the Apache
Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the name of sponsoring
entity. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until
a further review indicates
Sam Ruby wrote:
Can I ask that you document the process of updating the site?
Looks like it's already there, but not very obvious. I will add to the
side-bar, but in the interim :
http://incubator.apache.org/updating_docs.html
I want to make sure that there is a set of requirements for what
Peoples,
Is there a cron job anywhere that auto-updates the incubator site out of
CVS?
http://incubator.apache.org/updating_docs.html
doesn't mention one, but at the same time doesn't indicate that you have
to log into the site to do a cvs up.
If there isn't - does anyone mind if I set up a
David Jencks wrote:
As podlings are not yet fully accepted as part of the Apache Software
Foundation, any software releases (including code held in publically
available CVS) made by Podlings will not be endorsed by the ASF.
Podlings in Incubation SHALL NOT perform any releases of
Nicola and others,
I note in the DraftPolicy document you have done a s/shepherd/mentor/g.
Is this our final call on the title for these people? I.e. should I
make the same change to the Process Description?
Cheers,
Berin
Sam Ruby wrote:
I'm under the weather, and a little irritable, but this is starting to
get under my skin.
I am trying to follow http://incubator.apache.org/process.html
I have asked for this to be updated.
I have asked for information on how I can update this.
Sam,
I am 90% of the way through
From: Rodent of Unusual Size
In particular, I'm going to
- put the IncubatorMussings document onto incubator as the overall
process description.
um, would you mind taking one more poll first before it becomes
'official' policy (since that's what being on the web site means)?
i
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not necessarily. Put it in the website CVS linking it from the drafts
section and add a warning part on top so that it's clear that it's a WIP.
Sounds like a good compromise. I will do this.
However - fair warning - I am going to be a pest
and
From: Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Er, I have way too much experience with wikis to trust them as
the source for normative documents -- that's why we use cvs.
I'm explaining myself *very* badly today, my
apologies.
There are two documents I (and others) are
currently working on.
The
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
my first reaction is: please be patient. people don't function on
internet time, and most of us (including you) have other demands on
our time. so poke and prod all you like to keep things moving, but
don't anticipate instant responses -- or even cogent ones within
,
Berin
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The wiki pages would already be committed to cvs if I were not already
waiting for you to have access to do it yourself. I'll just assume
you won't mind having karma on incubator and add you to avail...Done.
Berin Lautenbach and Noel Bergman now have karma
Incubator PMC People,
Would be great to get some guideance and direction on the recent
activities that have been occuring. I have a (not trying to be smart)
terrible fear that I might be wasting my time, and I *hate* doing that.
I'd prefer to be officially told now to re-focus or stop before
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again). The incubator AFAICT
replicated a tricameral vote. To release you must have:
1. A PMC vote to accept it
2. The committers of the project vote that they're ready to leave
3. The incubator PMC vote
Ken,
Firstly - apologies for getting the wrong end of
the stick. Assumed this was Incubator. (Never
assume as the old saying goes.)
Had a quick read through. Will be great to have a
skeleton in place for PMCs to build on.
I wonder if there is a need for two documents?
Firstly a board
robert burrell donkin wrote:
(sorry stephen i should have probably been clearer.)
i was looking for an official(ish) statement from roy or one of the
other senior (board level) ASF folks.
(i'm happy to take active steps to ensure that ASF policy is enforced by
the jakarta pmc - and any other
Nicola,
Apologies - I've lost the plot a bit on this one :.
So what's the final verdict on releases?
Cheers,
Berin
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exit Criteria
Date: 26/09/2003 16:23:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Abele wrote:
...
...but the last part
Stephen,
You will see from my last e-mail that I've lost
the plot somewhere, but some thoughts because I
can't resist.
I was looking at the same thing yesty, but from a slightly different angle.
I thought (maybe wrong???) that Incubation was
not about how good is this code base/product.
If
Roy,
Is the rule below universal accross the ASF? I
thought it was up to the PMC of each project on
how to handle releases of sub-projects.
This has not been codified anywhere for the
Incubator. Should I add this into the draft
Charter for the PMC?
Cheers,
Berin
From: Roy T. Fielding
Roy,
Please do not take this the wrong way, I'm trying to be constructive :.
One of the things that's been driving me up the wall is quite a few
people telling me this is the way it must be done because the bylaws
say so. But when I go to the bylaws, I get something much more vague -
namely
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
This means that, legally speaking, the Incubator can decide to do
releases and then remove a project, as also can be done with other
projects. Nothing is immutable, again legally speaking.
+1 - so releases are permitted (with caveats of course).
2 the incubator votes
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Any reason why the IncubatorMussings document should not be referended
from ApacheIncubatorProjectPages ?
It is now.
(Ken and Incubator PMC - if that's not OK, feel free to remove)
Cheers,
Berin
:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:23 AM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Cliff,
Firstly - thanks for all the thoughts. Great stuff! (I think.
Grumble grumble, more work, mutter mutter :)
You are more than welcome to update anything in the document you so
desire. However that's not a hint - am happy
Cliff,
Firstly - thanks for all the thoughts. Great stuff! (I think. Grumble
grumble, more work, mutter mutter :)
You are more than welcome to update anything in the document you so
desire. However that's not a hint - am happy to (and will tomorrow)
take all this on board and make the
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sometimes a sponsor or a shepherd has to act fast and remove from CVS
things that are not correct, like licensing. Or simply to give a hand,
always about incubation things.
I don't find it inconsistent with meritrocracy, as they should be
From: Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Create a forrest xml source for the Incubation Musings and place
onto web site. This will require an OK from who? (PMC?)
If you're willing to do the work for this, that's fine, but I don't see
a forrest-enabled version as a requirement. At
From: Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Berin and I are aiming at the same objective and have very
similar motives. I happen to think that we can leverage and utilize the
contribution of Berin's process by analysing his concers and underlying
interests and drawing from
Stephen McConnell wrote:
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
Steven Noels wrote:
Do I read you correct in saying that the receiving PMC has no chance
anymore to declare an incubation failed, if the Incubator PMC says the
contrary? In that case (and I hope I'm wrong), why is the receiving PMC
involved then?
I've put something slightly different into the
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it *wants*
that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Maybe there were reservations that the PMC wanted to have covered off
during incubation. The best way to ensure that everyone is
Peoples,
Have done another update and tried to represent the results of the
various comments during the day. Have mainly tried to :
1) Re-emphaise the role of a Sponsor as an ongoing role. No particular
requirements in the process (other than initial recommendation), but
have stated that
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
An incubation needs someone that actively nutrures the community, pushes
the agenda and reports to the PMC of which he is part.
I call him the sponsor.
We also need someone that is knowlegable of how the Incubator works and
that reports to the Incubator PMC.
I call
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If a project cannot work well with the Sponsor PMC it's a failure, the
Incubator will not agree to make it go. It may decide to swith targets,
but imposing a project on non-willing PMC is simply out of question.
Which may require a vote of the PMC in question to
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
