incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Incubator, or "Incubation"?
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:26:33 GMT
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. <> wrote:
> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :)  We might want to break
> this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
> Anyways, just one commment;
> On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> I can easily see a small group of
>>> people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate.
>>> I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution
>>> to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be
>>> handled by the TLP itself by graduation time)
>> I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me,
>> but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared
>> to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other
>> ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be
>> on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that
>> those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys
>> are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that
>> organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of
>> ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help
>> shepherd them in just the way it works today.
> You mention also "No need for the position anymore. Just another report to
> have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the
> board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1."
> What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the
> middle man.  Think of this VP as the expediter.  The one who takes a whole
> stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to
> "Fill this in, and we'll submit these things".
> This VP would not be in the middle.  They would be on the sideline.  If
> the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then
> marvelous.  If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution
> in their lives, the VP is there to assist.
> The VP keeps the "files" on process.  Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best
> Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter
> "Your proposal should state" formal documentation.  Think in terms of
> ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks.  They don't stand 'over' any
> committee.  They gather, define and communicate process.  That is the
> role of VP, Project Incubation.  Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs)
> assume the *responsibility* for following those processes.  Not a traffic
> cop, but a tourist guide.
> It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just
> as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring
> to and caring for the projects in the Attic.  Sure, ComDev will have some
> good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement.
> But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the
> board's feedback.  If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP
> would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before
> the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting.
> So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether
> it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation.  It can't be left
> in a hundred different hands to drop.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message