incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: [doc] Roles and Responsibilities Update Needed [WAS Re: Mentors - the more, the merrier?]
Date Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:25:41 GMT
On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:20 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>>> We just voted to elect a non-Member ASF Officer to the Incubator
>>> PMC in order for him to act as Mentor for the projects sponsored
>>> by the PMC of which he is the PMC Chair.  Do we wish to declare
>>> that election and process null and void?  Or do you concur that
>>> the Incubator PMC has the right to elect whom it feels appropriate
>>> to execute the role, based upon its collective human judgement?
>
>> The Incubator PMC decided that only an ASF member can qualify as  
>> being
>> a Mentor, period.
>
> And has, on more than one occasion, voted in violation of that  
> decision.

No, it hasn't.  Some people may have voted for a project proposal  
without
realizing that the Mentor is not an ASF member, and that may have  
allowed
an invalid proposal to pass.  It should not happen.

> So at least some months ago, we started talking (more than once on  
> this list)
> about Mentors being just the active Incubator PMC members involved  
> in the
> project.  But that is neither here nor there at this point.  What  
> matters is
> the consensus going forward.

We have talked about a lot of things -- the policy has not changed.

>> That has nothing whatsoever to do with who is able to be on the PMC.
>> [anyone involved in the process should be on the incubator PMC.]
>
> So we would have people who have a binding vote on all decisions  
> made within
> the Incubator, including all projects under Incubation, and yet not
> qualified to be Mentors?  How would you care to differentiate the two?

Every incubator project must have at least one Mentor who is an ASF  
member.
The reason is because only an ASF member has access to everything in the
ASF, which is sometimes necessary for a podling to know what it should
be doing in any given situation.

> Incubator PMC members are, by definition in the Bylaws
> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3), the people  
> responsible
> for active management of the Incubator project(s).  The role of  
> Mentor is
> strictly a construction of the Incubator PMC, which I believe ought  
> to be
> able to select Mentors as the PMC sees fit.  Especially since any  
> criteria
> are of its own making.

Yes, and we made it: a Mentor must be an ASF member.  There are many  
more
PMC members than Mentors.  The fact that we trust these people  
implicitly
doesn't make up for the fact that they do not have access to the private
information needed to mentor a podling.  That private information  
includes,
among other things, the sum of all mistakes made by previous Apache  
projects.

>>> Is the Board wrong to permit Officers who are not Members?  Just
>>> how far do you want to take this?  Are you really going to hold
>>> the Incubator PMC's (and the Board's) decisions hostage to the
>>> voting schedule of the Foundation?
>
>> Yes.  The only way that we have for the ASF as a whole to validate  
>> that
>> someone has sufficient clue and commitment to guide future projects
>> is to elect them as an ASF member.  No one else has the right to say
>> they are qualified.
>
> No one else but whom?  And why exactly does the Incubator PMC not  
> have that
> right, when the Mentor role (and the necessary criteria) is one of  
> its own
> creation?

The Incubator PMC has made its decision.  I have no idea what you are
talking about when you say that the documentation needs to be changed
when the policy HAS NOT CHANGED.

> And although I've made the comment that I put considerable weight  
> on whether
> or not I feel that a nominee for Membership would make a good  
> Mentor, the
> Membership as a whole has never identified having "sufficient clue and
> commitment to guide future projects" as a key criteria for Member  
> election.
> So whether or not the Membership *should* be that judge, it  
> certainly has
> not been to date, in that it has not made that a key criteria.  If  
> we are to
> take your statement in that light, it would be an important point  
> to make
> clear to all Members that they should only nominate and vote for  
> those whom
> they feel have "sufficient clue and commitment to guide future  
> projects."

No, but once they become Members they do have access to a clue, whereas
it is guaranteed that non-members do not.

> Well, that ought to slow down growth of the Membership.  And there  
> are those
> who would not be Members had that been a primary (or mandatory) basis.
>
> Regardless, this does reinforce my belief that the Incubator may  
> well be the
> best place for someone interested in becoming a Member to invest  
> time, since
> it is one of the few places were their participation would be  
> visible to a
> wide range of existing Members.

Alternatively, we can encourage the lazy bastards in underrepresented
projects to nominate people on time, as I did for the last election.

>> There are some people who should have been made an ASF member
>> long before they became officers, but that is in the past.
>
> And yet they hadn't.  Why not?  And why would you therefore want to  
> say that
> the Incubator PMC should preclude itself from selecting such  
> people, whom
> you feel should have long since been Members, as Mentors?

Because those people, while not Members, did not have access to what
they must know as Mentors.  It doesn't matter how great they are --
mentoring is passing EXPERIENCE on to the next generation and one
simply cannot do that without the necessary experience.  Non-members
do not guide people towards taking ownership of the ASF as a whole.
That's why many of the Jakarta subprojects had such a bizarre view
of the ASF: there was no reason for them to view ASF membership as a
consequence of project development at Jakarta and there were not
enough members per capita to cause the new volunteers to be nominated
when they had earned it.

>> Right now, the people who are officers and not yet ASF members simply
>> do not know what they need to know to do their job well, and we  
>> struggle
>> from that quite frequently.
>
> So, yes, the Board is wrong to make non-Members ASF Officers?  And  
> from
> where would you expect the missing education to come?

I think it has proven to be a mistake to allow any project to operate
without at least one ASF member actively involved in the project, since
the result is an island without new members.

>> That doesn't mean people need to be an ASF member to be involved in
>> incubation of a project -- they simply don't meet the required need
>> for a Mentor who is an ASF member.
>
> A "need" imposed by no other agency than the Incubator PMC, itself.

A need imposed by the board when it created the Incubator with a given
purpose that cannot be achieved without a member in the loop.

....Roy


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


Mime
View raw message