incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <>
Subject RE: Another cut at roles and responsibilities
Date Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:09:43 GMT
> I like the notion of the "Sponsoring Entity" at this addresses
> the entity into which a prodling is destined.

Apparently, the part that "destination is an exit criteria" hasn't resonated
with you.  Yes, it is helpful to have an idea up front, but not in the sense
where you took it, specifically:

> Perhaps we could change the name to "Parent".
> if a cadidate aims to be top-level, its parent would be the Board.

IMO, the Board's involvement should not be required for an unproven podling.
That is the purpose of the Incubator PMC.  The Sponsor would be the ASF
Member/Officer who has sponsored the project.  Depending upon how many other
co-sponsors had been lined up, the Incubator PMC might be more or less
active in incubation to help fledge the new podling.

On the other hand ...

> If the project aims to enter into a project such as Avalon, the
> parent would be the Avalon PMC.

Then there should be no lack of people who ought to take an interest in
welcoming the hopefully-soon-to-be member of their TLP.  If that is NOT the
case, I would consider that a warning sign.

> 2.  Shepherd versus Sponsor.

The names may be interfering with the roles.  One is the Incubator PMC
representative, who is most likely going to focus on what criteria needs to
be met to allow exit; the other is the person who is going to focus on the
positive aspects of Community building and project development, although may
be asked as and when necessary by the Incubator PMC to address an incubation
criteria issue.

> Shepherd role should be maintained as monitoring,
> operational support, validation and assessment.

That sounds about right, AIUI.

> The Sponsor should not be a walk-away position

The role seems better viewed as Sponsor/Mentor.  One should not be permitted
to do the former without being willing to be the latter.  The person could
delegate tasks, but would still be responsible, and would need to keep on
top of whatever tasks were delegated.  Ownership of responsibility needs to
be clear, and resident in that one person, not groups.

To make this concrete, if the James Project wanted to incubate something,
then either an ASF Member or Serge, our PMC Chair, would have to be the
responsible party.  Serge could delegate tasks, but cannot delegate

Please note: other than the very first item way up top (destination), I
don't believe that we are actually disagreeing.  Just clarifying.

	--- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message