Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t thoughts/positioning below.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break > this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. > > Anyways, just one commment; > > On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: >> >> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> >>> I can easily see a small group of >>> people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. >>> I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution >>> to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be >>> handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) >> >> I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, >> but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared >> to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other >> ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be >> on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that >> those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys >> are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that >> organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of >> ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help >> shepherd them in just the way it works today. > > You mention also "No need for the position anymore. Just another report to > have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the > board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1." > > What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the > middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole > stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to > "Fill this in, and we'll submit these things". > > This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If > the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then > marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution > in their lives, the VP is there to assist. > > The VP keeps the "files" on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best > Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter > "Your proposal should state" formal documentation. Think in terms of > ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any > committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the > role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) > assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic > cop, but a tourist guide. > > It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just > as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring > to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some > good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. > But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the > board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP > would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before > the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting. > > So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether > it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation. It can't be left > in a hundred different hands to drop. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
