Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > Honestly, Niclas, > > but if you and possibly others that strict, then we should change the > official policy. I do not doubt the reasons you give, but such a > statement seems difficult to me, if the official policy clearly > demands it, but insisting on more than the policy requests seems > questionable to me.
It is policy, but the written policy may be badly explained :) Mentor == Incubator PMC member. That's required. ASF member == automatic Incubator PMC member. That's policy. non-ASF member == nomination/voting process. That's policy. The problem is that unless a candidate demonstrates a clear competency in the way that the ASF works, the expectations for ASF projects and project committees, the meritocracy and collaboration required, and their own successful participation in one or more PMC's, they simply will be rejected as a an IPMC member and mentor. Part of the confusion is that proposers read "Mentor" and think in terms of software and project guidance. That isn't what an Incubator Mentor provides (although they may offer some of that too :). Mentors in the incubator are there to ensure the project quickly assimilates enough ASF culture to successfully graduate and follow the ASF foundation policies. So someone who might be a natural software development mentor does not help the project in the mission of becoming an ASF top level project, not unless that are already immersed in the ASF at one or more projects, themselves. I'm not commenting on Radu Preotiuc-Pietro, who has been at XMLBeans PMC since 2005, and if Radu has followed such lists as this one, legal-discuss, etc, would make a fine mentor. Just clarifying what -is- policy today, and what the common misunderstandings are. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
