RE: Help!
Berin, The issue of how a PMC overseeing a large number of projects should implement oversight is something of a different issue, however I seem to recall that Roy commented earlier that a PPMC could be viewed as a PMC subcommittee, given a responsibility for a particular aspect of that PMC's oversight. Others aren't overly happy with the idea of subcommittees. Personally, I don't see how the PMC can scale oversight if every member must be intimate with every codebase. As we have discussed in Jakarta, it is not necessary for the internal structure of the ASF to be reflected by the web structure. The xml.apache.org site could be a portal for a confederation of XML related projects, rather than a single project. In any event, if the landing PMC wants to require all PMC members to subscribe to the PPMC list, that's fine by me. :-) The project is under the Incubator PMC, i.e., the Incubator PMC Chair is the ASF Officer responsible for the project until it leaves the Incubator. That much is a given. However, one of the reasons for having the landing PMC involved is to provide a structure for them to take a lead role, and prepare the project for life in that PMC. That said, I would not dismiss the Incubator PMC as simply being "in the loop." > > Hopefully the PPMC will be dissolved by merging it with the landing PMC. > Or by simply removing the Incubator PMC members Same thing, from the Incubator's perspective. > > We dropped the "practice" designation. > So what does the extra "P" stand for now? Actually nothing. But since everyone keeps asking, I consulted Mr. Roget. Two choices could be "provisional" and "possible" -- as adjectives for the project, not the committee. Personally, I would not bother to expand the acronym. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PPMCs and oversight
Berin Lautenbach wrote: When the Incubator is coming up for its own quarterly report, I think that the Incubator Chair can send out a reminder to each PPMC list reminding them. The PMC, for its part, can and should make sure that there is sufficient oversight, but I don't believe that we need to designate someone as *the* Mentor, so much as make sure that there are always members involved. As for getting work done, the PPMC ought to take responsibility, and the less it needs someone to ensure that tasks are accomplished, the better. Perhaps we will find out that we need something more formal, but the less we need of that the better. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Help!
Noel J. Bergman wrote: So what does the extra "P" stand for now? Actually nothing. But since everyone keeps asking, I consulted Mr. Roget. Two choices could be "provisional" and "possible" -- as adjectives for the project, not the committee. Personally, I would not bother to expand the acronym. . I only ask because I am reading the PPMC document, and it's always good to expand acronyms in explanatory dox. I will go with provisional until someone tells me otherwise :>. Cheers, Berin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPMCs and oversight
Actually I see the mentor as being more than just requesting reports. I see the mentor as the formal link between the incubating projects and the ASF. A guide in the true sense of the word, and a person the ASF (generally in the form of the Incubator PMC) can hold accountable for the ongoing progress of incubation. For example, watching XML-Beans, I believe Ted played an incredibly useful role at the start in just getting things up and running and in assisting the project to start up. To me, that role is too important to leave as an informal thing. If it doesn't exist and nobody does it (or everybody things someone else is doing it), incubation stands a good chance of failing. Again - the mentor is the bootstrap. He/She achieves success by becoming redundant :>. But maybe this is my big company (always very desirous of accountability) background showing through :>. Cheers, Berin Noel J. Bergman wrote: Berin Lautenbach wrote: When the Incubator is coming up for its own quarterly report, I think that the Incubator Chair can send out a reminder to each PPMC list reminding them. The PMC, for its part, can and should make sure that there is sufficient oversight, but I don't believe that we need to designate someone as *the* Mentor, so much as make sure that there are always members involved. As for getting work done, the PPMC ought to take responsibility, and the less it needs someone to ensure that tasks are accomplished, the better. Perhaps we will find out that we need something more formal, but the less we need of that the better. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Help!
Berin, The basic drawback of expanding the acronym, IMO, is that because PMC is taken as a token, the people tend to see the P as applied to PMC. As you've already commented, "Practice" PMC isn't the connotation we want to convey, nor would "Provisional" PMC be desireable. It is more like a Provisional-Project MC. Hence, rather than engage in linguistic gymnastics, PPMC as a token feels easier. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PPMCs and oversight
Berin Lautenbach wrote: > Actually I see the mentor as being more than just requesting reports. I agree. Ideally, IMO, mentors are participating as knowledgeable peers. > a person the ASF (generally in the form of the Incubator PMC) can > hold accountable for the ongoing progress of incubation. > maybe this is my big company (always very desirous of accountability) > background showing through :>. The PPMC is accountable, and should know it. Mentors should be participating, and providing good guidance, but the PPMC should consider itself accountable. That does not mean a laissez-faire attitude on the part of mentors, but I think we should strive for that peer mentality from the get-go. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 03:58:43PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >>The status updates are posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED], prior ACK > >>from any Incubator PMC member. > > > >Does this need an ACK? > > I reckon it would need a "go-ahead" from the community, requiring an ACK > from a mentor is probably too strong. Besides, the general incubator > list is still "here", so we can always eventually rectify. We should just say that the PPMC should cooperatively create the status document and send it to the appropriate mailing lists once concensus is reached within their own group. We don't care how they do it as long as it gets done. :) > >s/all legal issues are sorted out/there are no legal issues/ > >Or should we say: there are no obvious potential liabilities? > > Seems better to me, +1 I think it's important that all known legal issues are resolved. I liked Sander's first suggestion: "There are no legal issues." (Meaning that if we find a legal issue later we'll resolve it then.) -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 11:23:40AM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote: > Onto the overall thought - do they have to be "Practice" PMCs? To me it > sounds very patronsing, although that might just be a culture thing. > > On a more serious note however, to me PPMCs are more than practice - > they are the real thing, it's just the Incubator PMC is double checking > everything going on. By calling them "practice", we are implicitly > giving a message that what they are doing is not real. > > Is there a better word? "Provisional", "Preliminary" or some such? +1 I had a slight feeling that "Practice" carried a negative connotation, but now that you mention it I think we might want to reconsider the name. I'd be ok with either of your suggestions. I'd even be ok with PMC or whatever replacement name for PMC we come up with. -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPMCs and oversight
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 08:39:00AM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote: > My one concern is that at the moment we have a mentor who has been > officially assigned to assist the project in question, who is a single > contact for the new developers in the event of issues and who is the > single person the Incubator PMC can go to to to ask where the project is > and what is going on. I.e. a single accountable person. > > I have this fear that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. > I have absolutely no problems with the idea that anyone who wants to can > sit on the PPMC and assist in mentoring (not officially marked as mentor > unless they want to be), but I believe there should be one officially > assigned mentor who is responsible for reporting etc. Why must it be one person? The entire Incubator PMC is responsible, so why should we limit this to one person? I think it's important that there are at least a couple Incubator PMC people subscribed to the PPMC mailing lists, but those people *are* the "Mentors". If a PPMC has an issue they should send an email and also cc: the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPMCs and oversight
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 02:22:26AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > When the Incubator is coming up for its own quarterly report, I think that > the Incubator Chair can send out a reminder to each PPMC list reminding > them. The PMC, for its part, can and should make sure that there is > sufficient oversight, but I don't believe that we need to designate someone > as *the* Mentor, so much as make sure that there are always members > involved. As for getting work done, the PPMC ought to take responsibility, > and the less it needs someone to ensure that tasks are accomplished, the > better. > > Perhaps we will find out that we need something more formal, but the less we > need of that the better. ++1! I completely agree. -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPMCs and oversight
Aaron Bannert wrote: Why must it be one person? The entire Incubator PMC is responsible, so why should we limit this to one person? Not saying there should be only one mentor (in fact I would argue against it). But I do think it important to have *identified* mentors. Having said that, I continue to maintain that having an identified single person as holding overall accountability for something (in this case the mentor role) is a good thing. Makes things more likely to happen. There can be other mentors as well, but there is one person for the Incubator PMC to go to. (But I don't ever expect to win that last one :>) I think it's important that there are at least a couple Incubator PMC people subscribed to the PPMC mailing lists, but those people *are* the "Mentors". If a PPMC has an issue they should send an email and also cc: the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. No - IMO these people are *not* the mentors (or at least this alone does not make them so). As a PMC member, I subscribe to PPMC lists to make sure I understand what is going on, and so that when a question comes up that needs input/oversite from the Incubator PMC then I can adequately do my part. A mentor is a far more active role than that. The mentors are supposed to be actively assisting the new project (not just the PPMC!) in getting into the ASF. By saying that anyone from the Incubator PMC on the PPMC list is a mentor for that project, we are loosing sight of what a mentor is supposed to be. Of course, being an incubator PMC member in a PPMC list does not preclude one also being a mentor, it's just that more is necessary. Cheers, Berin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
