On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 07:37:38PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> You are talking about oversight and reporting. By ensuring that multiple
> PMC members are participating on each PPMC; by instilling a sense of
> responsibility and accountability in the PPMC, itself; by using the STATUS
> file; an
A couple of times on this thread, Berin and others have pointed out that
"regular status reporting" is not all that incubating projects need. I
think that this is an important point.
The ever-present, never-defined "oversight" term seems to imply more of an
event interface -- "raise issues," "
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:39:51 -0500
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > And I *want* people to view the mentor as a very serious role.
> I want the mentors to take the role seriously, but I do not want the
> mentor's peers on the PPMC to view the mentor as anything other than a
> knowledgeable peer.
Since
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> You could apply the argument above to say we don't want a chair of the
> PMC or a chair of the board.
No, I would not, as they are not the same as a PPMC mentor. We do have a
PMC Chair, and we don't need a PPMC Chair (Greg already discussed that, as
you may recall).
>
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 desig
Berin,
> I said in an e-mail some time back that I suspect we are are
> violently agreeing. I still believe that :>.
:-)
> Your above point exactly matches my desire. I'm not looking for what
> I call "the accountable person" to drive and lead etc. in the normal
> course of events.
> However,
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> > It's a start. But you also need the landing PMC members.
> What's a landing PMC member?
If the project is intended to go under an existing PMC, e.g., axion going to
the DB PMC, the "landing PMC" is the latter.
I could support a policy that an in
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:13:46PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> When did liason come into this? I am confused as to what on earth
> oversite and assistance has to do with liason? I am also confused as to
> why having an identified person would restrict others from being involved?
Because i
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:27:54AM +0100, 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.
I
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 03:06:27AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > However there should be one person (the single mentor that we
> > originally had) who is tracking the project, the PPMC etc.,
> > holding them to task and making the Incubator PMC aware of any
> > issues. That to me is a critical
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:02:44AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >Who are the set of people who may add themselves to this list?
>
> Apache, Incubator and landing PMC members. Apache members that join
> should be made part of the Incubator PMC.
I don't know what a landing PMC member is, but
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 ens
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, s
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:20:40AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Again? They are already voted in with the proposal, so I don't see why
> they have to be voted in *again*.
Because that is the intuitive way of doing it while having to put all
this stuff in the proposal makes things really com
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 06:16:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >>I should finally add that we have basically agreed also that the PPMC is
> >>made of all PMC members and all the committers+landing PMC members, but
> >>that only the mentors must always be subscribed
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> When did liason come into this? I am confused as to what on
> earth oversite and assistance has to do with liason?
See the quoted language below.
> I am also confused as to why having an identified person
> would restrict others from being involved?
Read Stephen's own
Stephen McConnell wrote:
My response was related to the on-going debate about invididuals
versus group reponsibilities. What I described is role of an
individual lined to both an incubating project and to Apache at
large. I descibed the benefit that such a "real-person" can bring to
a new gr
Leo Simons wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project t
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to
be in incubation a
Stephen McConnell wrote:
...
Umm - I talked about a "point-man"!
Well then, we already have designated Mentors that I refer to in case of
need and that I assume are in charge. I don't see why you guys are
making such a fuss over a thing that is already there and is not going away.
http://incubat
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to be
in incubation anymore.
Exactly!
S
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no need
for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to be in
incubation anymore.
Exactly!
So you are saying there sh
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no need
for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to be in
incubation anymore.
Exactly!
So you are saying there should be a single lias
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
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.
A
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
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 tes
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
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Look at things from the other way round. For all practical purposes
you are the defacto point-man with respect to the Directory project.
From the point-of-view of people on the directory project you are the
man they can turn to privaetly, ask questions, seek advice, a
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> For all practical purposes you are the defacto point-man with respect
> to the Directory project.
I was curious, so I looked. I am far from the only PMC member (or ASF
Member) subscribed (I was also surprised to discover that there are ~40
subscribers) But although I
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
I will absolutely agree that we want to keep [rules] to a minimum. But
that minimum must exist for the ASF (as an organisation) to work.
Agreed. Some of which I think are for the Incubator PMC to impose on itself
as necessary, but don't ef
+1 on everything below (including the tinker's cuss).
Stephen.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
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 PPM
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The role of the incubator is to actively oversite projects coming on
board. Unless we have someone we can point to who is doing that
active oversite and reporting any issues, then I believe we cannot (as
easily) show oversite.
Doesn't work this way. At work, I show
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
...
> However I believe there needs to be a formalisation that there
is one Incubator PMC member who is ensuring the PPMC is meeting their
requirements of accountability.
The fact that only one is not enough and more are needed has already
been seen in practice and decided
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I disagree. I believe that with the PPMC structure in place, we should hold
the PPMC accountable, just as every PMC is accountable. We need to ensure
that the PPMC members are well aware of the responsibility of the PPMC, and
that it is accountable. I think that instillin
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> I will absolutely agree that we want to keep [rules] to a minimum. But
> that minimum must exist for the ASF (as an organisation) to work.
Agreed. Some of which I think are for the Incubator PMC to impose on itself
as necessary, but don't effect the structure of the PPM
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
...
How about this:
The PPMC starts with every Incubator PMC person who wants on
the PPMC. New PPMC members are then voted in by the current
PPMC members.
It's a start. But you also need the landing PMC members.
Am not so sure about commi
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 PP
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I should finally add that we have basically agreed also that the PPMC is
made of all PMC members and all the committers+landing PMC members, but
that only the mentors must always be subscribed to the ppmc and dev
mailing lists.
Yuck, this is terminology overkill. We reall
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 vol
Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
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 st
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 03:43:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> 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). Bu
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 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
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
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.
II
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 contin
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 02:22:26AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> When the Incubator is coming up for its own quarterly report, I think that
> the Incubator Chair can send out a reminder to each PPMC list reminding
> them. The PMC, for its part, can and should make sure that there is
> sufficient
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 08:39:00AM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> My one concern is that at the moment we have a mentor who has been
> officially assigned to assist the project in question, who is a single
> contact for the new developers in the event of issues and who is the
> single person t
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Actually I see the mentor as being more than just requesting reports.
I agree. Ideally, IMO, mentors are participating as knowledgeable peers.
> a person the ASF (generally in the form of the Incubator PMC) can
> hold accountable for the ongoing progress of incubation.
Actually I see the mentor as being more than just requesting reports. I
see the mentor as the formal link between the incubating projects and
the ASF. A guide in the true sense of the word, and a person the ASF
(generally in the form of the Incubator PMC) can hold accountable for
the ongoing
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
When the Incubator is coming up for its own quarterly report, I think that
the Incubator Chair can send out a reminder to each PPMC list reminding
them. The PMC, for its part, can and should make sure that there is
sufficient oversight, but I don't believe that we need to
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Noel,
No - I agree :>.
My comments about a mentor is nothing to do with Status files or the
like. It's all about having one formal link between the current ASF
and the particular project in incubation.
In fact that person doing all the status reports etc. I would se
Noel,
No - I agree :>.
My comments about a mentor is nothing to do with Status files or the
like. It's all about having one formal link between the current ASF and
the particular project in incubation.
In fact that person doing all the status reports etc. I would see as
counterproductive, fo
Berin,
Just as the ASF Board does with each PMC, we should try to encourage each
PPMC to do the oversight required of it, with guidance from individuals, but
without micro-management by the PMC as a body.
My comment from "PPMCs, Mentors and Chairs" on the PMC list was that
although each PPMC can
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?
MH
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> If being on the PPMC is not compulsory for PMC members
I believe that we need to distinguish between the PPMC mailing list and the
PPMC. Whether or not a PMC member is subscribed to the PPMC mailing list,
all PMC members are on the PPMC. The key issue is that all iss
Now that we have PPMCs, I am in the process of updating our policy document.
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html
In particular, we have decided that not all PMC members have to be on
every PPMC, but just ones that want to help out, that are thus Mentors.
This brings us
54 matches
Mail list logo
