On 12/22/05, Thomas Dudziak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder whether there isn't another problem here: that of the > (missing) oversight of the PMC that originally voted the project into > incubation. For instance, while I'm on the DB PMC and voted e.g. Derby > into incubation (just to pick an example), I did not really follow its > way through incubation for all the usual reasons (too much work, own > projects, bla, bla, bla). And I don't think that is much different for > other PMCs.
+1 IMO (unlike most other pmc votes) ATM the way the process stands means that there are very few negative consequences for a pmc (reputational or otherwise) if a podling fails. this is one of the few areas at apache were those who have to deal with any problems are not the ones with a vote. i'm sure that some pmc's do care and this is the model that needs to be followed but it's too easy at the moment for pmc's to vote yes without having to worry about any negative consequences. Now the problem that I see is that I was not 'forced' to take more > care about the projects that I vote into incubation. Correct me if I'm > wrong on this assumption, but in my naive view the incubator PMC has > the role of ensuring that the project learns/follows the ASF ways, > building a community etc. Whereas the DB PMC in my example would deal > with things regarding the 'content' of the project. > > If now for instance, the DB PMC would somehow automatically get the > the incubation mails for the projects that it voted into incubation > and its reports, oversight from this PMC might enhance. After all it > involves more work to actively delete mails than to not get them in > the first place. > And thus potential problems with incubated problems would surface > sooner, and the workload of the Incubator PMC might decrease - one > individual PMC has only a few projects in incubation whereas the > Incubator PMC has to take care of all incubated projects. not sure that all those emails would be very popular but i agree that responsibility for oversight should be better aligned to power. maybe it would just be a case of the pmc providing additional oversight. this would mean that anyone voting +1 would be agreeing to actively provide oversight (reading emails and so on). perhaps pmc should be asked to include more details of the progress of their sponsored podlings in the board reports. - robert
