Cliff,
Just saw your updates. Many thanks indeed! Allowed me to be lazy :.
Have also added something around your comment, echoed by Nicola, around
the Shepherd not being an initial committer, but having CVS access for
administrative purposes.
Cheers,
Berin
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
From: Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's about having an elder shepherd mentoring the main shepherd, and
possibly requiring at least two people helping in Incubation.
As someone who has seen multiple incubations, you feel that there is an
expertise related to
On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:29 AM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Would be great if you could have a read through the new version of
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
I also think this is a very well-written and extremely useful document.
Below are a few
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
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 -
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
I hope that the policies, procedures, responsibilities, and
ultimate accountabilities, will have a tangible and net-
positive impact on the overall development of the Apache Community.
:-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
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
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:
It's about having an elder shepherd mentoring the main shepherd, and
possibly requiring at least two people helping in Incubation.
What do others think about this?
Over-regulation.
/Steven
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Would be great if you could have a read through the new version of
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
Its looking good.
One point concerning the description of the Sponsoring Entity. I
currently includes a sub-heading Responsibilities
From: Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One point concerning the description of the Sponsoring Entity. I
currently includes a sub-heading Responsibilities of the Sponsoring
Entity. The content is basically describing responsibilities of the
Shepherd. It would read better if this
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
...
I have also very much de-emphasised the role of the sponsor. From what
I've seen, the key role post acceptance is the Shepherd. If the Sponsor
wishes to become the shepherd, then they retain the responsibilities,
otherwise they can move onto other things, having
Berin:
Have just gone thought the changes. I like the notion of the
Sponsoring Entity at this addresses the entity into which a prodling
is destined. Perhaps we could change the name to Parent. I.e. if a
cadidate aims to be top-level, its parent would be the Board. If the
project aims to
I like the notion of the Sponsoring Entity at this addresses
the entity into which a prodling is destined.
Apparently, the part that destination is an exit criteria hasn't resonated
with you. Yes, it is helpful to have an idea up front, but not in the sense
where you took it, specifically:
Steve,
From: Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Entities (Board, Parent, Incubator PMC) should not assigned actional
responsibilities - only decision responsibility. Actional reposibility
should be assigned to roles that are represented by accountable
individuals. There
Berin:
Have just read though your email and I feel that I have very strong
empathy with the position your raising - but all the same I'm going to
disagree with you! I'm confident that if we were in a cafe down in the
14e we would tie this up nicely in less that a couple of hours. But
that
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Small change in wording. If Ted stops doing his role as Shepherd,
then I would see it as the responsibility of the XML Project PMC
Chair to step in and find someone else.
Wooop - a compound correction to an otherwise perfect composition:
If Ted stops doing his
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Steve,
Not actually sure we are disagreeing. Let me
just add some thoughts and see where we get to...
Zut ... Australia really is at the end of the earth relative to France!
(Zut translated into Australian is B* H***).
GRIN. Tell me about it. The time
if this relates to an actionable issue - could you be a touch more
specific as to the action.
Actually, at this point I think that discussion has converged, a consensus
appears to have emerged, and since Berin has taken a lead on coalescing this
material, I think it makes sense to give him (and
Once I got past some of your phrasing, which I consider somewhat
injudiciously selected considering your likely audience,
Hang on a tick - I have to look this one up!
LOL
Well, for a start, referring to every decision making body as dysfunctional
wasn't the wisest course of action in my view.
Think of this entire process as the establishment of a set of imutable
procedures that will protect us from the breakdown of their system.
Things don't work that way, Stephen. People don't. Especially the kind of
people who participate here. This is not a community of bureaucrats. As
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Think of this entire process as the establishment of a set of imutable
procedures that will protect us from the breakdown of their system.
Things don't work that way, Stephen. People don't. Especially the kind of
people who participate here. This is not a community
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Once I got past some of your phrasing, which I consider somewhat
injudiciously selected considering your likely audience,
Hang on a tick - I have to look this one up!
LOL
Well, for a start, referring to every decision making body as dysfunctional
wasn't
25 matches
Mail list logo
