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 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.
Let me put this straight, as with this terminology we are getting confused. I'll define the things with the terminology I use ATM.
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 him the shepherd.
Probably the best thing would be to call: sponsor ->shepherd shepherd->mentor
but I'll leave this exercise to others.
This means that we need two people, one that *at least* wants to help out and one that *at least* knows how to do incubation.
"at least" means that both can be in the Incubator PMC for example, the clear cut is not there. What we need thought is that the two functions are performed.
Would it be possible to have a single person doing it?
Theorically yes, as someone that is already part of this PMC can decide to shepherd a project, but I have seen that to make it easier and smoother at least two people are required.
The fact that there are two people also helps in making both learn from each other, and make sponsors learn to be 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.
Another thing. I have read about private mails that help heal things before they happen. That is good, but the PMC should always be informed of what is happening so that they can act collectively if needed.
This is quite important IMO to keep the loop closed and have information come back to the PMC.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
