Hi Ted, On May 22, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
At one point, we had people becoming members of the Incubator PMC by virtue of being a Mentor or by virtue of a vote of the Incubator PMC. Did that change? This language implies that the Mentors must be pre-existing members of the Incubator PMC.
This is the current consensus of the IPMC as I understand it.
Is there a reason why we are saying "chosen by the Sponsor".
This is the language in the original Policy and I didn't change it.
In practice, candidates often troll for Mentors in order to complete the proposal, the Sponsor affirms the proposal drafted by the Candidate, which includes naming the Mentor or Mentors..
No matter how it arrived at, the proposal to the incubator includes the Mentors, and by that time they have been chosen by the Sponsor.
The language about reporting to the Sponsor makes it sound like there are two types of status reports. Why not just suggest CC'ing any status reports to the Sponsor's mailing list.
Can we defer this discussion? I'd certainly agree that the Mentor's report to the Incubator could be copied to the Sponsor's mailing list. And this is in the Process document so it can easily be changed after the current proposal is implemented.
Craig
-Ted. On 5/21/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Would this be ok? Change Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling, guide the podling in the Apache Way, and report its status to the Sponsor and the Incubator PMC. All Mentors must be members of the Incubator PMC. A Mentor has responsibilities toward the Incubator PMC, the Sponsor, and the community of the assigned Podling. to A Podling has one or more Mentors, one of which MUST be an Apache Member. Mentors are chosen by the Sponsor to actively monitor the podling, guide the podling in the Apache Way, and report its status to the Sponsor and the Incubator PMC. All Mentors must be members of the Incubator PMC. A Mentor has responsibilities toward the Incubator PMC, the Sponsor, and the community of the assigned Podling. If this works for you, I can post an updated patch and re-vote. Craig On May 21, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 5/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is, afaik, still some people who think that having >> more than one Mentor is unwise (the old saw is more than >> one mentor means no mentors)... If a podling wishes >> to have just 1, we should honor that, I think. >> >> Therefore I would think some sort of statement such >> as "The term 'Mentor' is not designed to be either >> singular or plural, and can either mean a single Mentor >> or a group of Mentors" or some such thing... >> >> I'm not ready to vote on it yet... >> Ditto to Jim's comments - multiple mentors are nice, but should not be> a requirement. -- justin >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!-- HTH, Ted <http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell DB PMC, OpenJPA PMC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
