+1 on all points. i think we are on the same page. On 9/1/05, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Dims -- I really appreciate the response! > > Comments and responses to your questions below. > > Cliff > > On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > I was thinking this liaison notice would happen after the sponsor PMC > has voted to take on the project, but before the Incubator PMC gives > its final approval. I imagine there could be the occasional case > where the Incubator PMC finds out something that would cause the > consensus to believe that accepting the proposal would not be in the > ASF's best interest. However, in most cases, this liaison would just > be a chance to politely negotiate any potential PR issues before > officially accepting the project for incubation (when press releases > may or may not occur and when reporters start interviewing people). > > > > - 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've always been in favor of public proposals (and have ensured that > was the case in each of the three ASF project proposals I've been > involved in). So, I definitely am not saying that the PRC must be > looped in before anyone proposes or discusses a proposal on a public > list! However, I think there's value in getting the PRC looped in > before officially *accepting* the project for incubation. I haven't > ever noticed a lot of press as a direct result of incubator > discussions, and I think there's a big difference between the press > that can be made about the discussion of a proposal and what can be > made of an Apache decision to start an incubating project. > > > > 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. > > Why don't we just require all new projects be named "Not-Apache Foo"? ;-) > > I don't have a strong feeling on this issue, but I do think that as > long as there is any press about projects being started at Apache, and > especially when we require the projects to use the "Apache" prefix in > their name, we need to consider that such action reflects on the ASF > as a whole -- no matter how many times we try to explain the concept > of incubator graduation. The other issue is that, if we know of an > issue that people are likely to ask about, we should be prepared with > an answer, whether the project has graduated or not. > > I guess this is really about allowing the opportunity to prepare a > media response for our actions -- accepting a project for incubating > is an ASF action, one that can be very interesting to the press and > the software industry in general. > > Cliff >
-- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
