incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Date Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:16:38 GMT
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>correct and by design.  part of the purpose of the incubator is to
>>make sure new projects fit into our technical and cultural framework.
>>assigning the mentoring process to a member, who has become a member
>>by virtue of demonstrating knowledge of the framework, makes sense.
> But also excludes non-Members irrespective of their technical/culteral
> affiliation with the subject and Apache.

correct.  what is the problem?  the foundation is the members, not
non-members, regardless of how savvy the latter may be.  what non-members
in particular do you feel are being shut out?

> Nobody is talking about j random. This is a question as to why Membership
> is a prerequisite.  So long as membership is a prerequisite the policies
> exclude other members of the Apache community from sponsorship or
> sheperding.

correct.  i have already explained that.  however, i'll try again.

> They may be strongly associated with a project, perhaps on
> an existing PMC, maybe a member of the board, and well integrated into
> the Apache Way, and yet - for some reason, that individial is barred from
> sponsoring and sheparding a project.

because they haven't yet *demonstrated* enough merit/understanding to
be nominated for membership.  or perhaps they've been nominated but
declined to accept, which i think also means they don't believe enough
in the basic framework for them to be suitable for mentoring someone
else through it.

> There are seperate questions here.  What will and will not become a
> part of the foundation should be a decision on the Board (either
> directly or via a existing PMC).

i think you have a misunderstanding about how things work in
the foundation.  the members are the ultimate authority.  they
delegate (by voting) much of the responsibility and authority
for operating the foundation to the board.  one of the aspect of
operation that currently happens to lie with the board is the
decision concerning new projects.  and the board has created
the incubator project to handle that and related issues.  the
chain of authority is clear, and ends with the members.  the
members *are* the foundation, and their authority trumps anything

> That subject is distinclty different
> from the subject of discrimination between Members and non-Members
> relating to sponsoring and sheparding.

not at all.  this is a meritocracy, not a democracy.  members are
members by virtue of having demonstrated merit.  something coming
through the incubator is intended to be part of the foundation's
projects -- which are owned by the members -- and so having the
mentoring and observation in the hands of a member makes perfect

if you are concerned because some areas of endeavour seem to be
under-represented in the membership -- such as the jakarta
bits -- well, that goes back to people being under-educated and
not nominating meritorious people for membership, or saying they
didn't want to be members because they saw no reason for it.
which in turn leads back to one of the reasons the incubator was
created: to try and correct the under-education.

here is a perfect demonstration of one of the reasons for becoming
a member: so you can have an impact on the direction of the
foundation as a whole.
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

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

View raw message