From general-return-9554-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Jul 05 13:26:35 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9311 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2006 13:26:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Jul 2006 13:26:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 58463 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2006 13:26:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 58305 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2006 13:26:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 58294 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jul 2006 13:26:28 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 06:26:28 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.174] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 06:26:27 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id q2so1753812uge for ; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 06:26:06 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Yf+ssaAuXHNjPM3YX4Th+ZbrY2TeFHaIF0J+ExKrIX07vJEk6a2z2qDnZiHkneN3kc7KSHGETb8wp5mYHu4gJqhsmKrRryvoClE5D2+gEZ4WFtPDvgZ/4qMcoAHU9HDiMsAlOQy5wL24/W7hRkY7F7RHvOWUpqf2uftP3SU5cXc= Received: by 10.67.100.17 with SMTP id c17mr7775055ugm; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 06:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.21.20 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 06:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 14:26:06 +0100 From: "robert burrell donkin" To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix) In-Reply-To: <88f5d710607050529i1e49e7a3q53d2539fac0542bc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_34728_29205860.1152105966008" References: <449ED2E3.1000904@worldonline.fr> <34894A2E-B4E7-451D-80A5-25B715ABCA4E@maven.org> <71e1b5740607021108u66eb2588sbeb9db9e816a1f6f@mail.gmail.com> <20060704072257.GB97375@bali.sjc.webweaving.org> <71e1b5740607040049p4053953bpeab769ba08487b45@mail.gmail.com> <88f5d710607050529i1e49e7a3q53d2539fac0542bc@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_34728_29205860.1152105966008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle wrote: > > Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC. > > There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most > of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens > of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially > when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation). > > A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved > in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a > direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes > to a vote. > > On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given > project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and > unbiased critical validation going on. > > So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated > two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project. > As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC > members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on > releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in > the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on > understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes, > releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance. the only downside to this plan would be to create YAR (yet another role). we already have sponsor, champion and mentor. it's hard enough to explain these without adding another one to the list. so, i'd probably prefer to reuse the mentor role. IMHO a successful incubation requires at least one mentor to adopt an active role. this is akin to the role that a chair plays in a standard project. if a distinction is needed between mentors then perhaps the initial ppmc (consisting only of mentors) could elect a ppmc chair who would adopt this more active mode. this would also allow (in time as the ppmc matures towards the end of the incubation) the chair to stand down to be replaced by a non-mentor and adopt a more passive role. - robert ------=_Part_34728_29205860.1152105966008--