incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>
Subject Re: Common naming accross policy/process/roles
Date Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:15:28 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> In essence, I agree that we should not change the current meaning of 
> Sponsor, that is exactly what you mean.

Ahh - violent agreement :>.

>> Absolutely not...for the policy.  In the policy document it is only 
>> mentioned right at the start as there being a requirement for an 
>> Apache Member to nominate a project.  
> 
> 
> Exactly.

OK - if I hear nothing from anyone over the next few days, I will remove 
Champion from the Policy document.

>> That's a carry over from previous documentation - I have tried not to 
>> remove requirements that were in the old versions, but am happy to do 
>> so on agreemetn from this list.
>>
>> For the process description though, I *think* it's kind of useful to 
>> define.  Not because it is directly important from the ASF's 
>> perspective, but because it can be incredibly helpful for potential 
>> podlings to have someone who helps them understand the "Apache Way", 
>> and who helps them through that initial process.  
> 
> 
> This is the definition of Mentor, if you take out the fact that the 
> project is not in Incubation yet. If we assume that Mentors can change 
> when the project is accepted, it's simply the Mentor, ie the one that 
> guides the project into Apache.

Might that get a little confusing in the document?  Having said that, I 
can reword around no particular name at all for the process/how-to 
documents.

>> 2.  The process document is not for us - it is for those who might be 
>> thinking about incubation.  It is not normative, and it *should* have 
>> things like issue trackers and champions.  Not because we are 
>> mandating them, but because discussing these things might help 
>> candidates understand the process a bit better.  I believe champions 
>> have helped some, so lets keep it in the descriptive document to maybe 
>> help others.
> 
> 
> This distinction between policy and process is not clear to me at all. 
>  From looking at the docs I don't see it, and it's some time that I ask 
> myself why we have different docs. IMO to make things clear there should 
> be only one document that is clearly normative.
> 

It's not so much between policy and process (which could both be 
normative) as between "The current policy document" and "the current 
process document".  The latter is meant purely as a descriptive document 
to help people out.  Maybe "process" is the wrong name.  Maybe we should 
rename to "A guide to Incubation" and call it "The Guide".

> Proposal:
> We keep a single policy document as our reference and make the process 
> doc into HOWTOs.
> 
> - Process HOWTO

Or "The guide".  Either way - yes.

> - Mentor HOWTO
> - Sponsor HOWTO
> - Incubating Project HOWTO
> - etc...

Works for me

> 
> Forrest has a HOWTO DTD, so we can use that.
> 
>>> As for Jason's comment, I agree. If we can get away with special 
>>> jargon, it's better. We have done it with Shepherd->Mentor, and we 
>>> may as well do it for /podling/.
>>
>>
>> Very happy to change it.  From my perspective I just picked it up from 
>> the earlier documentation :>.
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
>>>
>>> This is what we mean:
>>> http://www.geobaby.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=103478
>>>
>>> This is what users may find instead:
>>> http://dict.die.net/podling/
>>>
>>> Hence what about simply "Incubating Project" or "Incubated Project" 
>>> or "Project being incubated"?
>>
>>
>> Incubee?
> 
> 
> Hmmm...
> 

<GRIN>.  Can't believe you don't like it!  It's what you get when you 
cross a buzzing insect with a mythical demonic creature.  (A bee with 
attitude.)

Cheers,
	Berin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message