> > Members should look to the board to enforce policy, not define it (Though > Directors are members and will be involved with the definition) >
This disagrees with much that the Foundation has published. In example: "The membership of the ASF elects the 9 member board to run the foundation and to set and ensure policy." From: http://apache.org/foundation/ And whether I agree or disagree with your statement, this perfectly illustrates Marvin's point. Conflicting statements, that podlings see on websites, and then here from mentors, IPMC members, or even officers and directors make this incredibly convoluted for people who don't 'understand' the Apache Way, and more importantly, it's effect on a project community. And this happens all of the time. I recently was involved in an email conversation with a project that's considering coming to the Incubator. Involved in the conversation were 4 members, 3 of whom are officers, 1 of whom is a director, and we provided conflicting advice as to what was 'required' of a project at the ASF on specific points like bug trackers, mailing lists, etc. The reaction by folks from that project seemed to be one of wonder, curious which one of us was right?, Worried about the seeming inconsistency. I think that most of the projects that come into the Incubator, want to do the 'right thing'; we make that much more difficult by having such a variable answer to 'the right thing'. --David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
