J Aaron Farr wrote: > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > [ ] - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as > > mentors (without regard to affiliation)
> Currently there's only one mentor, but there can be several champions. We should probably revisit http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html and remind ourselves of what it says, why, and what we really intend. And then revise it as necessary to match the latter. As per that document, the role of a Champion is to help bring the project into the Incubator. As I read it, and in my own view, the Champion role pretty much stops there (the last sentence of the description notwithstanding, since we should really be focusing on the health of the burgeoning community). As written, a Champion must be an ASF Member or Officer. Why? A Champion actually has no specific rights. Can anyone express a reason why the role should be restricted to a Member or Officer? One that comes to mind is as a filter, but realistically, anyone can ask a PMC to sponsor a project. The Mentor role lists a large number of responsibilities, but they boil down to: [The] Mentor automatically becomes a member of the Incubator PMC. A Mentor has specific responsibilities towards the Incubator PMC Turning this around, we have the comment I made earlier today: a Mentor is an Incubator PMC member who is choosing to be active and help in guiding the community Without PMC membership, the Incubator specific notion of the Mentor role has no real standing, which is why a Mentor must be ("becomes") a member of the Incubator PMC. Mentors are PMC Members who are providing active oversight and guidance. We've established a couple of policies: - All ASF Members who join an Incubator project as Mentor and/or Committer shall be automatically entitled to Incubator PMC Membership upon their own acceptance of the responsibility, and subject to the normal notification requirement to the Board. - Any ASF Member may ask to participate on the Incubator PMC. The Incubator PMC Chair shall submit the request to the Board (cc to the PMC) to be acknowledged. At any time between the Member's request and prior to the expiration of the 72 hour period subsequent to the ACK, any current Incubator PMC member may object to the automatic selection. In the event of such objection, the selection will be cancelled, and a formal vote will be called. The second rule is recent, and renders the first redundant and unnecessary. We have also relatively broad agreement, and should formally settle, on having multiple (3+) Mentors per podling, in order to help ensure legal oversight. In addition, despite the "Mentor is a role undertaken by a permanent member of the Apache Software Foundation" portion of the description, we have previously elected non-Members to the Incubator PMC, and asked them to serve as Mentors. Following from the idea that a Mentor must be a PMC member, do we have a need to require them to be an ASF Member, as per the current document, or can we more simply drive the rule from the fact that a Mentor must be a PMC member, which is effectively how we have been doing it? Again, I get back to saying that Mentors are PMC Members who are providing active oversight and guidance. Does anyone see any effective difference, since PMC members have equal votes, and the only binding ones? Other than apmember karma, which means access to private information and the ability to contribute on restricted infrastructure, what would an ASF Member have that isn't also vested in someone whom we have otherwise chosen to vote onto the Incubator PMC? --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
