Please see below: On 8/31/05, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official > charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a > sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the > Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
+1. It does not have to be a formal VOTE on the pmc mailing list. It could be a note from PMC chair to general@ after a week or so. If something crops up in that time frame, PMC Chair can ask for a VOTE. > - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've > recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they > saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard > questions is answered. +1 Absolutely (We do this already, but its because we are lazy :) > - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s) > proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside > the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if > there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least > we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information. +0 Folks involved know better than to waste everyones time duplicating work. But If this list makes you sleep better, sure. But i don't really think it will help much. > - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source > communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC > knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really > only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and > create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in > *before* a project is approved. -0 (leaning toward -0.25/-0.5) for formal liaison. Don't want pre-existing preudjices to judge the proposal. AND Incubator our sandbox. -0 to have a pre-sandbox-sandbox. Let's do whatever is needed in public. What are u worried about here? press? I thought we are here to share our work and make the world a better place. Not focused on poll numbers or what the press says. > - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that > could have any chance of media attention (either because of the > overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy, > expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint > statement with some other organization). +1 Question is when do u want this to happen BEFORE the proposal hits the [EMAIL PROTECTED] or after that? Again, don't want a pre-sandbox-sandbox. > I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the > ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that > should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like > these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project > isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache > foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by > the ASF when it is accepted for incubation. Am ok for calling it just "Foo" if it helps avert problems. > BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC, > and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board > acknowledgement (which is fine with me)....why should there be > fewer checks to get an entire project approved? +1 to an ACK from PMC chair before the projects gets infra stuff started. > Cliff > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
