incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Lautenbach <>
Subject Re: Another cut at roles and responsibilities
Date Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:13:16 GMT
Stephen McConnell wrote:

>> Thus you have the shepherd appointed by the sponsor PMC, but being 
>> bound by the Incubator PMC
>> rules and regs.  (And I would imagine the incubator
>> would need to agree the choice.)
> Which does not work in practice (with respect to current policy).
> The Icubator PMC has been charged with the responsiblity of incubation.  
> We have to give them the opportunity to do this.  Your PMC, my PMC, 
> neither are charged with this responsibility. All we can do it is 
> establish a framework that ensures the integrity of the transition.

Thought I would just pick up on this one.  This is what we did for 
XMLBeans.  Ted (as a member of the XML PMC) volunteered to take on the 
shepherd role and the Incubator agreed.

Personally I like this approach.  Ted keeps using the term 
"infrastructure tax".  I see this as similar.  We want something - we do 
the work to make it happen.

In other cases, the Incubator PMC (or the board) might be the sponsoring 
entity (parent?).  In these cases, the shepherd might be nominated from 
the Incubator PMC or from elsewhere.

The key oversite from the Incubator is (to my mind) and independant 
review of what is happening.  If the incubator also has to find people 
willing to shepherd each candidate as it comes along, we risk never 
finding willing shepherds.

>> Does that sound fair?
> Yes - providing we give the Incuabtor PMC due responsibility and ... we 
> ensure that the policies and procedures protect us from potential absuse 
> or neglect of said responsibilites by said PMC.

I think we are - in the form of oversite and directions of actions taken 
by shepherds.


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

View raw message