incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Lautenbach <>
Subject Re: Common naming accross policy/process/roles
Date Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:14:08 GMT
BTW - Have checked changes in - how do I update the site?

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

>> My understanding was that there will always be a PMC (or
>> the board) that accepts a candidate on behalf of the ASF.
>> Where there is no Sponsor, the Incubator PMC acts in that
>> role and votes to accept the candidate (thus becoming the
>> Sponsor).  The documentation is currently written this way,
>> with the caveat that where the Incubator PMC is the sponsor,
>> one of the exit criteria will be finding an owner on exit.
>> (Owner might be the board for a Pod/Podling that becomes a
>> TLP.)
> I agree with Noel, the Sponsor is simply the entity or the person that 
> *advocates* the project to be part of the ASF. But then we come back to 
> the "Sponsoring Entity" thing to say who will accept it.

I am getting a bit lost here :>.  When I said "Sponsor" above, I meant 
in the sense of the "Sponsoring Entity".  So, as I understand what has 
been agreed, there must be some Sponsor (PMC or board) that agrees to 
the project on behalf of the ASF.  Which is all I was trying to say.

Or have I missed the point somewhere?  (Entirely possible, we have just 
moved to daylight savings and it's killing me :>).

> In any case, do we *need* to define the "champion"? I mean, take the 
> case in which a project proposes itself to a PMC, and the PMC votes to 
> have it come in... there is no "champion", and no need for one.

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.  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.  Not something that is 
important to define formally, but something we might want to encourage 
potential candidates to do.

> Hence, I'd simply remove the definition of "champion" at this point, as 
> it seems irrelevent to the definition of the process from our POV.
> This does not mean that there cannot be Apache members that actually 
> champion a project, but it's not strictly necessary for incubation.
> [same thing for issue trackers, they can be used but we don't require them]

So, to be absolutely clear on my perspective -

1.  The policy document is the normative reference to incubation.  It is 
lean and mean and defines only that which absolutely needs to be defined 
to satisfy ASF incubation requirements and to ensure the process is 
repeatable.  I would be happy to take Champion out of this.

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.

> 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 :>.

> This is what we mean:
> This is what users may find instead:
> Hence what about simply "Incubating Project" or "Incubated Project" or 
> "Project being incubated"?



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

View raw message