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 charged with the responsiblity of incubation. We have to give them the opportunity to do this. Your PMC, my PMC, neither are charged with this responsibility. All we can do it is establish a framework that ensures the integrity of the transition.
Thought I would just pick up on this one. This is what we did for XMLBeans. Ted (as a member of the XML PMC) volunteered to take on the shepherd role and the Incubator agreed.
Personally I like this approach. Ted keeps using the term "infrastructure tax". I see this as similar. We want something - we do the work to make it happen.
In other cases, the Incubator PMC (or the board) might be the sponsoring entity (parent?). In these cases, the shepherd might be nominated from the Incubator PMC or from elsewhere.
The key oversite from the Incubator is (to my mind) and independant review of what is happening. If the incubator also has to find people willing to shepherd each candidate as it comes along, we risk never finding willing shepherds.
Does that sound fair?
Yes - providing we give the Incuabtor PMC due responsibility and ... we ensure that the policies and procedures protect us from potential absuse or neglect of said responsibilites by said PMC.
I think we are - in the form of oversite and directions of actions taken by shepherds.
Cheers,
Berin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
