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 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 

>> 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:
>>> This is what users may find instead:
>>> 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 


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

View raw message