incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Thoughts about formalizing the role of shepherd
Date Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:36:58 GMT
Why would adding another formal role solve the problem that saw the
creation of shepherds (missing mentors)?

Are you tackling a different problem now?

Unless there is a really solid reason for it I would be concerned about
crating structure in the incubator that isn't present in the ASF proper.

Should this new role be a better use of the existing champion role,
complete with the handing over of that title to a PPMC member before
graduation and a progression to PMC chair upon graduation? We discussed
this some time ago and agreed it was a good idea but we never really
carried it through.


Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 13 Jan 2013 08:46, "Benson Margulies" <> wrote:

> Right now, a shepherd assignment is a temporary job. It starts as the
> reports for a cycle begin to come in, and it ends when the shepherd
> feels that he or she has done what makes sense in terms of reporting
> to the community and, in some cases, delivering some constructive
> nudges to the projects.
> I've been thinking about an alternative, but it may not be popular.
> In my alternative, the IPMC organizes itself as follows:
> At the top of the pyramid, tied down to the Aztec altar, is me, the
> chairman.
> Next down are the 'vice-chairs', currently known as the shepherds.
> Each of these people is responsible for a group of projects, dispersed
> across the reporting cycle. The shepherd, at least, tunes into the
> reports, but also checks in during the three-month reporting period --
> particularly if we have identified issues that the project needs to
> address.
> Next we have the mentors, who are 'inside' the projects, offering
> guidance, coaching, and supervision. However, the fact is that we
> don't have enough volunteers to have multiple, active, tuned-in
> mentors for all of the projects all of the time.
> Last, but hardly least, are the freelance members of the committee,
> who tune in on things like release reviews.
> If we adopted this plan, we'd add a shepherd slot to the metadata for
> each project, and I, as chair, would take action if the designated
> shepherd wasn't available to do a review for a project in a reporting
> cycle. Either I'd do it myself, or I'd put out a call for assistance.
> I'm not going to defend this scheme tooth-and-nail. If folks prefer
> the current approach, I'll focus on fixing the schedule to make it
> easier to make it work.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message