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 isn't the case so I'll try my best to present the issues I see in this email.
Zut ... Australia really is at the end of the earth relative to France! (Zut translated into Australian is B***** H***).
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
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 were a couple of places in the document that needed to be tightened up in this respect.
Personally Not sure I fully agree with this, having seen XMLBeans. If the XML Project wants to have the Incubator take on something on its behalf, then there is a two way accountability. I fully believe that the XML Project has to take some accountability for assisting the podling. That accountability (in the case of XMLBeans) is discharged by the Shepherd, who is a member of the XML PMC, but can call on others in the XML project for assistance at any time.
Consider the following assertion. The XML Project PMC, the Incubator PMC, the Avalon PMC, the Apache Board, ... all of these are basically dysfunctional entities when it comes down to doing something actionable. These entities are only good for taking decisions (although I must confess that the Board does break this logic from time to time). Let me get to the point - the XML Project PMC can make a decision to sponsor something. In doing so the XML Project PMC Chair has a responsibility concerning the implementation of the decision of the PMC. Now we all know that PMC chairs are gods, and as gods, they are surrounded by angels, and gods like playing golf, so gods, being responsible, delegate things to angels. Fortunately we can associate names with angels, we can hold them responsible and through them we hold the gods accountable. What this means is that the XML Project is doing what you want - but me - as a outsider, I can point a finger at an angel and I can "hey - this needs to be done - and you (angel) personally are responsible". If that doesn't get done - I can go to god and say "hey god, something is wrong - your angel isn't doing what he/she/it? should be doing and your responsible. God gets kind of annoyed - goes to the council of angels (the XML Project PMC) and says - hey guys - we have a problem (meaning hey guys I have a problem). God, using his immortal powers sends down another angel to fix the problem.
Have you ever seen the movie Dogma - at the end of the day *she* is responsible.
Bottom line - we are always dealing with individuals. The individual may change over time, but there is an individual that is responsible and therefore accountable.
Otherwise this is throwing all the responsibility back on a couple of people. To me the whole Apache concept is about community, so lets demonstrate what that means to the podlings.
If Ted stops doing his role as Shepherd, then I would see it as the responsibility of the XML project to step in and find someone else.
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."
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.
I think you are correct, that we are heading to
the same end, but I think it important to separate the sponsor of the original proposal
away from the incubation.
There are people who are visionaries. "I can see
why this is a great project and why it will be
a good fit for Apache". They can help a
candidate "sell" a proposal to Apache. Are they
necessarily the best person to help a project
through Incubation? Not so sure.
Absolutely 100% agree.
But hang in there for a moment and thing about separation of these roles. One role "A" is about responsible representation and guidance with a engagement that is implicit for the duration of incubation - for better or worse. Another role "B" is about vision, excitement, opportunity, enterprise. What the policies and procedures of incubation need is "A". What the project needs initially and on re-occurring occasions is a brilliant "B". But "B" is not the subject of concern of an incubation policy. I think "A" needs to be on the PMC and to represent the project and I think "B" needs to in the public face making sure that the value proposition is communicated. Tying "B" to a set of policies and procedures is the last thing you want. But it does mean you need to establish an "A" for the long haul.
"A" == Respected and Recognized Sponsor "B" == Director of Marketing
To me, that's what the very notion of a shepherd is - someone
who guards and protects the flock.
DIR="LTR">
Substitute you idea of Shepard for Sponsor. Assume you have a Marketing Director in the wings and that you Sponsor and Marketing Directory are secretly working together on a plan titled "72 hour Incubator Exit Strategy". Also assume that the Shepherd is the one to overcome (kind of like a VC Investor). He has final say - do you get the green light or not - so everything your Sponsor and your Marking Director do is to move the Shepherd along the path you would like. If you do this right - you have the ingredients backing you (a good project with a clean profile) then getting passed the Shepherd should not be a problem. Keep in mind that Shepherds are simple minded people that know a lot about sheep but don't know anything about what sheep actually think. Also keep in mind that the Shepherd can kill the sheep with reasonable cause. But if you have a Marketing Manager in the wings - and if the project is OK - you exit, the Shepherd gets sent home with a pat on the back and a round of cheese - and the sheep run around looking happy and content - the Marketing Manager drives off looking or a new challenge, and you lean back in you chair, look at the screen, smile, and say to yourself .... "it works".
Cheers, Steve.
p.s. Who is someone terrible disappointed that you, an Australin to-boot, removed the so carefully and selectively prepared phrase "Incubator PMC meanderings" in you last wiki edit!
Will I ever forgive this guy?
;-)
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
