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 enter into a project such as Avalon, the parent would be the Avalon PMC.
There are two areas of concern I have in the current text.
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 were a couple of places in the document that needed to be tightened up in this respect.
2. Shepherd versus Sponsor. In you text you have a sheperd assigned by the Parent (Sponsoring Entity) combined with a shift of responsibilities from Sponsor to Shepherd. I'm not keen on this. I think that the Sheperd should be assigned by the Incubator PMC irrespective of the Parent and that the Shepherd role should be maintained as monitoring, operational support, validation and assessment. The Sponsor should not be a walk-away position - instead I would propose a much strong relationship. A Sponsor should expect to stay with a project throught the incubation and if for any reasons the Sponsor cannot do this, the the Sponsor should notify the respective entities and facilitate the introduction of a replacement Sponsor.
My impression is that we are actually aiming towards the same thing but that what you thinking of as Sheperd is what I'm thinking of as Sponsor. There are a few other little things but I thought it best to get these two items clarified first.
Stephen.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Peoples,
I have taken Stephen's page and attempted to integrate my understanding of the concept of a Sponsoring Entity (e.g. XML project in the case of XMLBeans).
This is all based on what I have seen during the course of the XMLBeans incubation startup.
Apologies for term *Sponsoring Entity*. I couldn't come up with anything better on the spot.
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 convinced an appropriate body in the ASF to take on the candidate.
Peoples - I am very happy to back these changes out, but I wanted to put continue the approach of having something concrete in place to help the discussion along.
Cheers, Berin
Stephen McConnell wrote:
I have prepared a new page based on the oringal content that Berin prepared. Here is a summary of the things I changed/added:
1. cleanup of the descriptions and terminaolgy (product/project/sub-project) etc. 2. simplification of the description of the pmc (complemented with addition process content) 3. sharpending the description of the scope of responsibility of the PMC chair 4. introduction of the notion of sponsor 5. harmonize content so that sponsor and shephard are complementary 6. introductory description of the process end-to-end 7. breakout of all roles in an equivalent format with identified responsibilities
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
I would appreciated any feedback concerning content and suggestions on how we could proceed with migrating this to a structured set of policies and procedures that could be adopted by the Incubator PMC.
Cheers, Steve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
