incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:14:14 GMT
On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
> This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
> podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
> the advice of a small iPMC. 

No.  Forget IPMC.  The VP, Project Incubation and their committee doesn't
advise, the members as a whole do, and propose the initial list of mentors.
general@ doesn't change, it's still the place for 'me, too!' offers to
mentor an incoming proposal.  But yes, that set of mentors provides the
initial guidance to the project and is responsible for reporting to the
board.  As a board reporting committee, the board too also has supervision
based on those reports.  One thing that does not change; every ASF member
has oversight privilage over most every private list at the ASF, including
our current PPMC and new Incubating PMC private lists.

> In other words, a project is born when
> three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate by the small
> iPMC, are constituted as a project by the board, with one (the
> recently invented champion) as the chair.

When 3+ mentors step up on general, the members participating on general@
give something approaching consensus, the VP, Project Incubation simply
submits a resolution and the board takes it up and passes it (as is, or
amended).  And yes, the champion is the logical first-chair until the
project graduates or they are replaced for other reasons.

The board could also take up a resolution to charter an Incubating PMC
without the advisory vote on general@.  That is a bit different than
today, when "imposing" a podling onto Incubator would be somewhat absurd.

> It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental
> argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely
> does not want to have to provide direct supervision all the podlings:
> that's what the Board's formal feedback to the IPMC just now is about.
> So, under this scheme, the particular mentors that make up the initial
> PMC of a project are the ones the Board is trusting, and if any step
> down, they absolutely need to be replaced.

Bingo :)

> I support proposing this structure to the Board, but I wouldn't be
> terribly surprised if the answer is 'no'.

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

View raw message