On 2/4/12 12:28 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >> >> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority >> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the >> community has demonstrated viability. > >I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be 'full PMC's... the >ASF has a general 'set your own policies, hands off until it's broke' >policy >towards projects. > >Nobody is suggesting that an incoming 'project under incubation' would be >free of such rules, policies or oversight. Where usual TLP's are free to >set the most flexible policies that suit their participants, any project >under incubation has a more stringent set of ComDev defined 'best >practices' >that they must and will follow. If as a full TLP they decide a tweak here >or there help their community, it's up to the board to permit that. And >generally, the board is flexibly permissive. > >But with one Champion not of the project itself, but of the ASF, and >several >additional mentors/overseers/ombudsmen, no incubating effort is going to >enjoy the free reign that TLP's have. If only all projects had that sort >of supervision, the foundation would be quite secure in knowing that all >projects are running as non-factional, non-partisan and non-commercial >efforts to create software for the public good. I think the disconnect I was trying to point out is that the proposal itself assumes that the new PMC is fully functional so long as at least 3 ASF members are a part of it and the PMC chair is the champion. Taking Rave as an example, we walked in the door with ~20 non-ASF member PPMC members. Not that it would have happened in our instance, but I can envision a case where a project enters the ASF and isn't forced to understand how things are done here (bad releases, policies, etc). At that point, the board is forced to step in and rectify the situation, when the same outcome could have been avoided by gradually stepping the community up in authority. I have no real opinion as to whether the IPMC stays, or changes structure, or any of the other possibilities discussed; but, I do think there is an important oversight mechanism that can't be lost. If you were to tell me that the incoming PMC would ONLY be comprised of ASF members, and new community members are voted in as they demonstrate an understanding of the Apache Way, then that is a different story. However, that is not what the proposal in the wiki states. Also, if that were to be the case, what happens when the "mentors" aren't available for release voting (A case that has happened to us 3 times even with 5 ASF member mentors)? Again, I am not saying change isn't important or needed, just that we need to take a breath and look at what we are trying to solve and why. To that end, I intend on putting together a counter proposal and posting it to the wiki that addresses some of the concerns I (and others) have voiced. > >Good concerns to raise, but i think they are unfounded in light of the >current proposal[s]. > >Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
