I thought it was a good question Leo. I'm also wondering about the PPMC and the relationship to mentors, champions, etc. I assumed the PPMC was the proverbial fisherman's committee being taught how to manage the project of fishermen under Apache rules. For Ode, Sybase asked James and Allen to mentor us and join the project. Dims was also invited by James to mentor due to his level of energy :-).
Along came Ismael with Intalio's offering. All good so far but I'd have expected that the incubator PMC would have asked the proposal authors to pair down the committer list to something manageable and form the PPMC from the group that offered the proposal (presumably James, Allen, me, and then Ismael). At that point committer's would be added by the PPMC. Another reading is that Karma has less to to with a project and is Apache wide. That reading sounds like it could lead to problems for a podling. I'll claim ignorance if my assumptions were off :-). Bill On 2/19/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to snipped stuff. You're on the right track. > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 07:15:23PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > 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? > > Not really. > > > 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? > > Codified level of trust. > > With ASF members, it seems we kind-of feel that its ok to have the PMC > membership > be "all but automatic" (these people are pretty much assumed to understand > what > direction incubation is going in, usually have prior experience on another > PMC, or > whatever it is that creates this 'trust' thing), whereas with other people > it is > not so clear. I think its fine to have non-asf-member mentors and > non-asf-member > PMC members, but I think that should be a concious vote from the existing > PMC > (like with other ASF PMCs) since that is another way to establish enough > 'trust'. > Eg the positive vote from the existing PMC here is this 'codified trust'. > > Make sense? > > (...) > > The implication here is that you don't get to be a mentor by adding your > name to > an incubation proposal unless > > a) you're an ASF member, and/or > b) you're an incubator PMC member > > and we vote on this "people thing" seperately. > > Interestingly, these people things are invitation-only for things like > committership and (pmc) membership, whereas with the incubator it seems > we're on a > road to invite-one-self kind of thing. Is this concerning? What is going > on here? > > - LSD > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
