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 23:26:35 GMT
On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> I'd modify your proposal just a smidge.  Keep an Incubator VP with a very small
>> operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process
>> of wrangling the necessary proposal, votes and board resolutions.  Some amount
>> of process documentation would remain under that VP and their committee.
> I think this modification adds overhead that I think we have already. ComDev
> can provide this guidance and I think that's what the natural purpose for it is.

Simply, there needs to be someone (backed by a committee with specific individual
responsibilities, if that person likes) to shepherd state changes into a board
resolutions, ensure they hit the board agenda, maintain what we call the
'incubation web site' today, and answer inquiries about 'how do we go about X?'
You can suggest that the directors, members and site-dev people take on all of
those tasks, but we know that randomly distributed responsibilities don't work
out so well.  That's why there is now a collection of these VP roles at the ASF.

>> Take "VP, Project Incubation" out of the role of judging incoming or graduating
>> projects.  Leave general@ for the process of submitting a proposal to come in
>> as an incubating podling or leave by way of graduation, the attic, or graveyard
>> (full purge in the rare case of questionable IP provenience).
>> Make every podling a proper PMC to include its mentors.  Make a choice between
>> including all listed initial contributors, or instead, have the mentors promote
>> the actual contributors given time and merit, based on a well thought out and
>> somewhat predictable flowchart.
>> Have ComDev drive the effort to ensure all projects are nurtured by finding new
>> mentorship of old, graduated projects as well as incubating projects who had lost
>> their mentors.  This might avoid some cases of the board imposing a full PMC reset
>> on established projects.
>> Most importantly, have the voting by the full membership on general@ to recommend
>> to the board accepting a podling or graduating a podling to a TLP.
> If the full membership is making the recommendation then i see no need for a VP
> Incubator and I think it should be disbanded. However, I agree with your statements
> above and think they jive with my proposal. 

I view this more as giving the members the opportunity to raise questions and issues
of how a particular project proposal would fit here, which is what they do anyways.
This only makes it more formal.  You keep the VP simply as the record keeper and
executor of the decisions on general@.

>>  Why?  Given
>> the example of the hotly contested AOO podling, if the membership (represented
>> by Incubator PMC members) did not ultimately have the discussion that was held,
>> and if the board had 'imposed' accepting AOO on the foundation, it would have
>> done internal harm.  Now maybe only 50 of the members care to review proposals
>> and cast such votes.  That's OK, they are still representative of the membership.
>> If a member wants to gripe on the member's private list, they can be gently but
>> emphatically nudged to take their concerns to the general@ discussion of the
>> proposed project.
> Yes yes yes. Perfect. That's right. Let the membership VOTE for the proposal 
> and then recommend to the board. That's a great idea. And I guess that would
> mean that general@ stays around. I could live with that so long as the VP 
> Incubator and the IPMC is discharged. As I said, I think they have more than
> served their purpose. 

Well, the scope of general@ shrinks dramatically, although it can continue to be
a place for a recently approved project to holler "help, we need more help!".

You might view the VP as overlapping the Champion.  But do we want every one
of the Champions to have to be intimately familiar with the form of the board
resolutions, or consolidate some of the book-keeping?  VP Project Incubation
works with those Champions.  Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team
works with all the individual projects as a resource, but isn't responsible
for the oversight of individual project security defects.

I don't see this working without an appointed coordinator.

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

View raw message