community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Process, policy and best practice
Date Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:36:28 GMT
Yeah, I think so. Sounds like quite a promising idea.


On 1 April 2013 22:20, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/1/2013 2:19 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com
>> >**wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Apr 2013 18:28, "Luciano Resende" <luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Ross Gardler <
>>>> rgardler@opendirective.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> ...
>
>  Since then the IPMC has been discussing the idea of handing off the
>>>>> documentation parts of their responsibilities to ComDev. This is just
a
>>>>> discussion item and is in no way a decision at this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea, as I understand it, is not to pass over any of the podling
>>>>> oversight responsibilities, only the documentation of ASF policies,
>>>>> processes and best practice.
>>>>>
>>>> ...
>
>  If the budget is not a pre-requisite, how do envision a small PMC like
>> ComDev, taking responsibility of a big task, that the current owner and a
>> much larger PMC has not been able to handle ?
>>
>
> Luciano has an excellent point in that there's not much to discuss until
> ComDev sees some clarity on what is being asked.
>
> I do however think this could be an excellent idea, precisely in part
> because ComDev is smaller and more focused.  I could imagine ComDev
> changing it's scope to effectively serve as an information shepherd on all
> of the apache.org/* content focused on our technical communities. I.e.
> not only serving as owners of community.a.o, where we have friendly
> overviews and pointers to other info, but also editorial owners of things
> like /dev.  This doesn't mean setting policy for technical matters or svn
> instructions - this more would mean (I'm imagining) taking responsibility
> for making the technical information there more understandable and better
> organized.
>
> The issue with the IPMC and the Incubator is multi-fold:
>
> - Operations.  Overseeing podlings and voting in new ones, graduating
> ones, etc.  This is *not* anything to do with ComDev.
>
> - Policy setting.  This is the IPMC (or other relevant ASF officers)
> setting official minimum required policy for the incubation process. This
> is *not* anything to do with ComDev.
>
> - Explaining to the world what the Incubation policies are and guiding
> newcomers through how IPMC Operations work.  This one bit is something that
> ComDev *might* be able to help with, if I'm seeing what Ross is getting at.
>
> Personally, I find the incubator site maddening in terms of explaining to
> a normal human what the heck to do.  There's a chance that if ComDev wanted
> to help, people here could make significant improvements merely by better
> explaining the incubator - without having to make policy or podling
> decisions.
>
> That in particular is something that could make use of a hired technical
> writer, if separately we thought that spending was warranted.
>
> Make sense?
>
> - Shane
>



-- 
NS

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message