On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:29 AM, Berin Lautenbach wrote: > Would be great if you could have a read through the new version of > > http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
I also think this is a very well-written and extremely useful document. Below are a few notes/questions I had, many of them fairly small, but some might be worth considering before the document goes final. I also just made minor grammatical fixes to the Wiki page (no changes of substance). Thanks to Berin / Stephen for all the work in putting this together. If any of these notes are straight-forward enough to be applied to the doc, I'd be happy to help with that if you need it. Thanks, Cliff NOTES ------ * Starting with the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Establishment section, the draft begins to address the people involved in the candidate project, but there are large sections of the document that are not addressing anyone and just describing the process (probably related to the fact that the document has multiple authors). If this document is meant to address people of all roles, I suggest removing the instances of "you" and "your". * How does one, who isn't familiar with Apache, find a Sponsor? One extreme would be to set up a mailing list like "looking-for-a-sponsor at apache.org" that would be subscribed by all members/officer who would be willing to consider taking such a role. The other extreme is to leave it to the individual to figure it out (if they really care they'll find a way). However, without a list, I think links [1][2] should be included to at least let the proposer discover who is even authorized to be a Sponsor. Incidentally, I found my sponsor (Steven Noels) when we were both speaking at XML Europe 2003, otherwise I didn't know anyone here (actually I did, but I didn't know it at the time). * Either in the Establishment section, or the Sponsor section, it might be worth noting that the Sponsor can help those behind a potential candidate project understand the general "Apache Way" before even proposing the project and possibly wasting everyone's time. While we would rarely want to encourage private conversations, I think private consultation between a neophyte proposer and the Sponsor may be in everyone's best interests. Of course, this will be less important as we have more good docs like this one. ;-) * If this doc is meant to be read by a new proposer, some of the references to "relevant mailing lists" and "either pmc@ or board@" may need to be spelled out a little more somewhere. Maybe an appendix of useful mailing lists? * In the Sponsor and Candidate sections, it states that the Sponsor presents the Candidate's proposal to the Sponsoring Entity. Does this mean that someone behind the proposal will not be the one sending out the first public proposal to [EMAIL PROTECTED] entity} and cc'ing Incubator? Or does this just mean that the Sponsor will be standing by to help moderate the discussion/explain things that the initial proposers cannot? * Should a proposal template be attached to this document (another appendix)? XMLBeans used the Jakarta new subproject guidelines [3] as a template, because I'd seen others use it, but I don't think it has been an official practice. Seems like it could be a helpful thing to formalize. * In either the Sponsoring Entity section or Shepherd section, I would consider explicitly stating that another responsibility/good reason for the involvement of the TLP Sponsoring Entity (not the board or Incubator PMC) is to educate the Candidate about practices specific to the sponsoring TLP, and about other subprojects that could relate to the Candidate. * Since the doc spells out the roles so clearly, I would replace the first instance of "Apache Administration" with "ASF Secretary" and the second instance with "ASF Infrastructure team". * "On acceptance of a candidate project, the assigned Shepherd and nominated Sponsor shall be added to the set of committers for the duration of the incubation process." Does this mean that these two are removed from being committers on the project once it escalates? Also, the general idea of automatically giving specific people committership seems somewhat contrary to a meritocracy. I actually don't think this is a bad idea; it just seems a little messy and somewhat inconsistent. * "keep your Shepherd informed" and "Sponsor...in-the-loop" We may want to say this can be greatly aided by conducting business on the -dev list, which can be monitored by these two. I would think most of what a Shepherd needs to report can be determined by looking at the -dev list. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/index.html [3] http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
