incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <>
Subject RE: Another cut at roles and responsibilities
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:02:01 GMT
On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:29 AM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:

> Would be great if you could have a read through the new version of

I also think this is a very well-written and extremely useful document.  
Below are a few notes/questions I had, many of them fairly small, but 
some might be worth considering before the document goes final.  I also 
just made minor grammatical fixes to the Wiki page (no changes of 
substance).  Thanks to Berin / Stephen for all the work in putting this 
together.  If any of these notes are straight-forward enough to be 
applied to the doc, I'd be happy to help with that if you need it.


*  Starting with the last sentence in the first paragraph of the
Establishment section, the draft begins to address the people involved
in the candidate project, but there are large sections of the document
that are not addressing anyone and just describing the process (probably
related to the fact that the document has multiple authors).  If this
document is meant to address people of all roles, I suggest removing
the instances of "you" and "your".

* How does one, who isn't familiar with Apache, find a Sponsor?  One 
extreme would be to set up a mailing list like "looking-for-a-sponsor at" that would be subscribed by all members/officer who would be
willing to consider taking such a role.  The other extreme is to leave
it to the individual to figure it out (if they really care they'll find
a way).  However, without a list, I think links [1][2] should be included 
to at least let the proposer discover who is even authorized to be a 
Sponsor.  Incidentally, I found my sponsor (Steven Noels) when we were
both speaking at XML Europe 2003, otherwise I didn't know anyone here
(actually I did, but I didn't know it at the time).

* Either in the Establishment section, or the Sponsor section, it might 
be worth noting that the Sponsor can help those behind a potential 
candidate project understand the general "Apache Way" before even 
proposing the project and possibly wasting everyone's time.  While we
would rarely want to encourage private conversations, I think private 
consultation between a neophyte proposer and the Sponsor may be in 
everyone's best interests.  Of course, this will be less important as
we have more good docs like this one. ;-)

* If this doc is meant to be read by a new proposer, some of the 
references to "relevant mailing lists" and "either pmc@ or board@" may
need to be spelled out a little more somewhere.  Maybe an appendix
of useful mailing lists?

* In the Sponsor and Candidate sections, it states that the Sponsor 
presents the Candidate's proposal to the Sponsoring Entity.  Does this 
mean that someone behind the proposal will not be the one sending 
out the first public proposal to general@{sponsoring entity} and cc'ing 
Incubator?  Or does this just mean that the Sponsor will be standing
by to help moderate the discussion/explain things that the initial 
proposers cannot?  

* Should a proposal template be attached to this document (another 
appendix)?  XMLBeans used the Jakarta new subproject guidelines [3] 
as a template, because I'd seen others use it, but I don't think it 
has been an official practice.  Seems like it could be a helpful thing
to formalize.

* In either the Sponsoring Entity section or Shepherd section, I would
consider explicitly stating that another responsibility/good reason
for the involvement of the TLP Sponsoring Entity (not the board or 
Incubator PMC) is to educate the Candidate about practices specific to
the sponsoring TLP, and about other subprojects that could relate to 
the Candidate.

* Since the doc spells out the roles so clearly, I would replace the
first instance of "Apache Administration" with "ASF Secretary" and the
second instance with "ASF Infrastructure team".

* "On acceptance of a candidate project, the assigned Shepherd and 
nominated Sponsor shall be added to the set of committers for the 
duration of the incubation process."  Does this mean that these two
are removed from being committers on the project once it escalates?
Also, the general idea of automatically giving specific people
committership seems somewhat contrary to a meritocracy.  I actually
don't think this is a bad idea; it just seems a little messy and 
somewhat inconsistent.

* "keep your Shepherd informed" and ""  We may 
want to say this can be greatly aided by conducting business on the 
-dev list, which can be monitored by these two.  I would think most 
of what a Shepherd needs to report can be determined by looking at 
the -dev list.


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

View raw message