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 zones are
playing havoc with me.
> 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.
Yes I'd agree with this. (And yes I did see
Dogma :>).
But..... (see below)
> >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."
Yes - that I can live with (and even agree
with :>), as it fits with the responsibility of
the chair to the board.
But to me, that makes the XML PMC chair ultimately
accountable. If I'm the CEO of an organisation
(I wish), I delegate responsibility for overall
marketting to a given area. However, if that
delegation fails, it is myself that is held
accountable to the board.
So the company as a whole looks to the marketting
department to action what is necessary, but when
it all fouls up the CEO holds the can.
I suspect we might be violently agreeing?
>
> >>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.
>
Yes - I agree with this. Particularly on not tying
B to the policies and procedures. Keep this as
fluid as possible.
That's what I tried to do in removing
responsibility on Sponsor in the document, but
with the actual intent of your paragraph below
where you substitue sponsor with shepherd.
> "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".
>
I *think* this is what I was trying to do, but I
must have miscommunicated. When I updated the
document, I put a lot of the things that were in
there as "sponsor" onto Shepherd. I see the
shepherd as the person fulfilling the oversite
role and being bound (to the least extent possible!) by Incubation process and rule.
The sponsor (who intially did the vision thing)
still exists , and I would hope is still
involved, but this is a role that anyone can step
in and help on. No need to formalise - I don't
actually think you can, or that you would want to,
other than the initial submission. (The reason
for that is more to ensure someone is helping a
podling from the start, and to put a reasonable
bar on out of the blue solicitation.)
So where I was getting to was the shepherd is, as
you indicate above, the formally bound individual.
But.... I do believe the shepherd should have an
interest in seeing things succeed. I think if we
have a shepherd who is a pure functionary, then
you risk having nobody supporting the podling
during the daily grind. Otherwise doesn't
incubation just become an impartial test? If we
have said we want to do something then I would
want to give it as much of a chance as possible to
succeed.
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.)
Does that sound fair?
> 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?
>
> ;-)
>
<GRIN>. To be honest I couldn't resist, just to
see whether I would get away with it (and I
didn't.)
Cheers,
Berin
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
