You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2007/04/08 18:51:37 UTC
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
I see that I've already commented on this thread without replying. ;-) To
continue, a Mentor is a member of the Incubator PMC "who will guide the
Candidate through the Incubation Process." Key point being an Incubator PMC
Member. If I recall correctly, the reason for the "at least one" clause was
because a small minority objected to non-ASF Members. I'm sure that the
discussions are archived.
The rest is a question regarding PMC membership. We've had non-ASF Members
elected as Incubator PMC Members, and any ASF Member is entitled to
Incubator PMC Membership.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 09 April 2007 21:03, Ted Husted wrote:
> I would suggest that the IPMC can vote anyone onto the PMC, just like
> any other ASF project.
Which is already the case.
> As to a podling proposal, I would suggest that we expect all Mentors
> be ASF Members or IPMC Members. If someone would like to be a Mentor
> but is not already a ASF Member, we could always elect that person to
> the IPMC first, and then accept the proposal.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
Noel,
On 4/11/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > > ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the
> > > ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means
> > > they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a
> specific
> > > issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in
> > > similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble.
> >
> > I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me
> > as a mentor.
>
> But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task
> without. But
> this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one
> Mentor is an ASF Member.
>
> > > They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they
> are
> > > members). That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have
> less
> > > to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than
> in
> > > the trenches, where egos can get in the way.
>
> > I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This
> is
> > a very important point I did not consider before.
>
> And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor
> role
> without having something to prove. Becoming a Member does not grant some
> magic insight. It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it
> become Members.
>
> > I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members
> > although IPMC members need not be ASF members.
>
> Oh? So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be
> permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its
> projects?
I see your point here as well. This is an anomaly yes. I'm not saying this
is a perfect
solution and perhaps I'm wrong. Bill just swayed me a bit with his last
comment about
being able to access these private archives. I just think these materials
are useful. No
disrespect towards those who were not members and did the job properly. I
agree that
there are no magic powers to being a member ... just greater awareness of
what's going
on internally because of access to these private archives.
I can see both sides of this argument and am torn between either direction.
Really I think
regardless of the direction we go the ASF is going to be OK. Either option
will be managed
with diligence from our membership and our supporters.
Regards,
Alex
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 4/12/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> * when necessary *
>
> given some of the problems that have been percolating all the way to
> general@, there are some problems in mentorships. The hammer is only
> applicable to things that are not acceptable ever - backroom (offlist)
> decision making, refusing to acknowledge merit (keeping a podling 'closed')
> or not complying with the ASL. There is a short list of unacceptable
> practices at the ASF
Semi off-topic, but we should try and distill the short list of
acceptable and unacceptable practices into some type of concise
"Elements of ASF Style". It's cool that we have so much detailed
documentation at the ASF site and the Incubator site, but it's
becoming hard to see the forrest for the trees.
* http://jroller.com/page/TedHusted?entry=apache_rules_002
> - the mentors job is to short circuit those early
> before they become habit (or - more difficult - rewire them for projects
> with a long prior-history before entry to the incubator.)
>
> When these problems escalate to iPMC there is a problem in the mentoring,
> either mentors not raising the hammer, or podlings refusing to listen to
> the advise. Lowering the hammer sometimes has to come from the iPMC, but
> it should already be hanging over their heads, having very clearly
> explained what's wrong with the status quo and why at the podling level.
>
> This makes it possible for the iPMC to act, instead of discussing the
> possibility of entertaining the thought of taking a potential action.
If we have timid mentors, I would suggest it's because most mentors
are new to incubation. I would venture that the average ASF Member
knows very little about the incubation process or what can happen if
"podlings go wild". If timid mentors are an issue that the Incubator
PMC wishes to address, then I would suggest stating a preference that
at least one of the mentors be a "senior mentor" who has been through
the process before (graduated or retired). If we did do that, we
should also state that a volunteer can only mentor one podling at a
time.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/11/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Cast a binding vote in the project? Yes, of course. Mentorship is a
>> heavier
>> hammer than that, when necessary.
>
> As a three-time Mentor, I would venture that anyone who mentors with a
> hammer doesn't understand the role :)
* when necessary *
given some of the problems that have been percolating all the way to
general@, there are some problems in mentorships. The hammer is only
applicable to things that are not acceptable ever - backroom (offlist)
decision making, refusing to acknowledge merit (keeping a podling 'closed')
or not complying with the ASL. There is a short list of unacceptable
practices at the ASF - the mentors job is to short circuit those early
before they become habit (or - more difficult - rewire them for projects
with a long prior-history before entry to the incubator.)
When these problems escalate to iPMC there is a problem in the mentoring,
either mentors not raising the hammer, or podlings refusing to listen to
the advise. Lowering the hammer sometimes has to come from the iPMC, but
it should already be hanging over their heads, having very clearly
explained what's wrong with the status quo and why at the podling level.
This makes it possible for the iPMC to act, instead of discussing the
possibility of entertaining the thought of taking a potential action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 4/11/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Cast a binding vote in the project? Yes, of course. Mentorship is a heavier
> hammer than that, when necessary.
As a three-time Mentor, I would venture that anyone who mentors with a
hammer doesn't understand the role :)
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>> ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the
>>> ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means
>>> they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific
>>> issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in
>>> similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble.
>> I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me
>> as a mentor.
>
> But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task without. But
> this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one
> Mentor is an ASF Member.
1/3 is not sufficient, given the absenteeism that is evident. This goes
to my earlier comment about mentoring-the-mentor, if the 1/3 becomes 0/2
for a time (which is happening too frequently), what then?
>>> They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are
>>> members). That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less
>>> to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in
>>> the trenches, where egos can get in the way.
>
>> I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This is
>> a very important point I did not consider before.
>
> And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor role
> without having something to prove. Becoming a Member does not grant some
> magic insight. It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it
> become Members.
First, no disrespect intended. I've repeatedly pointed out this is a forward
looking assessment of the policy, and not ment to rewrite history, so don't
even waste bandwidth framing it as such.
Second, becoming a member *acknowledges* insight, which I want the incubator
out of the business of determining, and put that back on the members where
it belonged. Where it isn't meeting our expectations (1/yr is too infrequent)
take that discussion and solutions to members@ discussion.
Lastly, I'm curious 1. how many (often is a gross overstatement) and 2. would
this have been true with or without their mentoring a project (my guess is
it was not a deciding factor in their nomination or election, but feel free
to correct me).
>> I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members
>> although IPMC members need not be ASF members.
>
> Oh? So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be
> permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its
> projects?
Cast a binding vote in the project? Yes, of course. Mentorship is a heavier
hammer than that, when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the
> > ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means
> > they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific
> > issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in
> > similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble.
>
> I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me
> as a mentor.
But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task without. But
this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one
Mentor is an ASF Member.
> > They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are
> > members). That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less
> > to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in
> > the trenches, where egos can get in the way.
> I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This
is
> a very important point I did not consider before.
And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor role
without having something to prove. Becoming a Member does not grant some
magic insight. It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it
become Members.
> I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members
> although IPMC members need not be ASF members.
Oh? So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be
permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its
projects?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
SNIP ...
ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the
> ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means
> they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific
> issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in
> similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble.
I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me as a
mentor.
They also have
> made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are members). That
> gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less to prove, and
> can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in the trenches,
> where egos can get in the way.
I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This is
a very
important point I did not consider before. I think I would agree with you
now that
mentors should be ASF members although IPMC members need not be ASF
members.
If members are spread thin and more mentors are needed for new projects
entering
the incubator then I think this gives us a natural measure of when to
throttle down
project acceptance to maintain proper oversight and guidance to incubating
projects.
Alex
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/10/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member Mentorships?
>
> I've already stated mine. To me, it's self-evident that if a person is
> qualified to serve on the Incubator PMC, then that individual is
> qualified to serve as a podling mentor, at least in the same way that
> any random Member is qualified.
>
> We'll just have to leave it to the usual majority vote.
I agree; would have started the vote days ago, but this discussion
is productive and would hold off a few more days to hear from folks
who haven't added their 2c, yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 4/10/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member Mentorships?
I've already stated mine. To me, it's self-evident that if a person is
qualified to serve on the Incubator PMC, then that individual is
qualified to serve as a podling mentor, at least in the same way that
any random Member is qualified.
We'll just have to leave it to the usual majority vote.
-Ted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member
> Mentorships?
We need all the help we can get.
There's many people that volunteer to fill this mentoring role. Most
of them do a good job. They may not always be Members. There is no
correlation between doing a good job mentoring and being a Member,
and the postulation of a correlation is offensive without relevant data.
We have always allowed for non-Member mentors and it has never caused
an issue.
It's healthy for any community ecosystem to be as diverse as
possible. The ASF tries to be as open as possible, and this involves
putting as few barriers to participation as possible.
And such and so forth.
Most importantly, its a proven recipe that has yet to fail us.
> So please give me some valid cases for this exception
No, that's the wrong way around. We made an initial policy, it has
worked in the past, it is working, and it has helped to resulted in
positive contributions to the ASF, and satisfies our basic openness
criteria. It should stay the way it is until there is a good reason
to change it. So far, I haven't seen that reason being brought up.
> other than "but they are ready!" I don't care that they might
> be ready - I'm asking for examples of motivation, and predictably
> positive
> outcomes from non-member mentorship.
How about you provide a predictably positive outcome from from-Member
mentorship first?
> Mentorship isn't technical
Some of it is.
> it's entire purpose is to convey "this is the ASF" to a podling.
No that's not the purpose of mentorship. The purpose of mentorship is
to help guide a new or existing open source community into the ASF in
a way that is good for both them and the ASF. (tangent: to me, the
most interesting of those communities are the ones that make the ASF
change its ways.)
> It's silly to suggest non-ASF members can or should be that voice.
No, it isn't. I will assert there are many more non-Members that can
do that job well (and are willing to do it) than there are Members
that can do it well (and are willing to do it). I've been a Member
for long enough now and a Mentor several times know, and I will
assert there is very little it brings you that allows you to do a
good job at Mentoring.
/LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Mentors and members
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Someone is nominated the iPMC as an active, involved contributor.
No one needs to be on the Incubator PMC because they are an active contributor. They should be on the Incubator PMC because they care about Incubation, and Mentoring one or more projects.
> Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member Mentorships?
Experience. I do not want to put an artificial restriction on whom the Incubator may select as a Mentor. We have had EXCELLENT Mentors who have performed their role with distinction long before coming an ASF Member. And, likewise, Members (even a Director or few) who have gone AWOL while they are supposed to be Mentoring. So while I do see where you are coming from, our real-world experiences do not support your perspective.
The decision is still a human one. We, collectively, have to make a decision on each individual.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>> But there is nothing stopping individuals from becoming a contributor.
>> I guess my point is that mentorship isn't a privilege, and shouldn't be
>> viewed as a feather in one's cap. We need active mentors, not those who
>> would sign up just for the title. ASF-Members-as-mentors has not really
>> solved this issue, but I believe it still constrains the issue.
>
> To be a member of the Incubator PMC, a volunteer would have either been
>
> * A podling Mentor,
> * An ASF Member who requested membership, or
> * A non-Member elected to the Incubator PMC by a formal vote.
>
> My point is that any individual who is serving on the Incubator PMC
> but is not a Member, would have already demonstrated to the Incubator
> PMC that he or she is responsible enough to be a Mentor.
I'm saying
1. Someone is nominated the iPMC as an active, involved contributor.
Nobody asked "are they ready to be a mentor?" The question was
"are they active in furthering the incubator project as a whole?"
You are trying to change the question and imbue their promotion
to the iPMC with additional expertise they may or may not have.
2. I don't want this onus on the iPMC. I want it where it belongs,
with the members. It's one thing to vet a new committer, and then
a new pmc member after they have been a committer for a while.
And I don't want to go through the gyrations twice per person.
3. This introduces added scrutiny by the iPMC to review the conduct
of the mentor, another bit of nonsense I don't want us to own
at that level of scrutiny. Mentoring the mentor? Yuck.
4. I don't want to see "I nominate Joe to the ASF membership. He's
a mentor on the WizBang project" to suddenly become some magic
bullet to ASF nomination. I'd probably nix that nomination on
it's face. It encourages members to vote without actually
examining the merit of Joe's nomination.
5. Members often agree to disagree. Your advise may vary. Cook to
an internal temperature of 160F. Etc etc. A non-member has -not-
earned the respect yet to dance that tango, and you put them into
the pot with other ASF member-mentors. Who loses? The non-member
voice, probably. Worse, the project - because I'm not saying the
voice was wrong - but they lack the history and deep-background
to go toe to toe.
Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member Mentorships?
If I want to learn what the ASF is, I want to learn it from the members.
If I want to learn the best technical solution for the project, I look
at my fellow contributors. So please give me some valid cases for this
exception, other than "but they are ready!" I don't care that they might
be ready - I'm asking for examples of motivation, and predictably positive
outcomes from non-member mentorship.
Mentorship isn't technical, it's entire purpose is to convey "this
is the ASF" to a podling. It's silly to suggest non-ASF members can
or should be that voice.
> If we could nominate someone as an ASF Member at any time, then our
> recourse could e to elect that person as a ASF Member, and then accept
> the podling proposal. But, the ASF Member events are few and far
> between. If we forget to nominate someone (and we often do), it could
> be a year before there's another opportunity (since we also forget to
> schedule the votes).
Now that's a separate issue. Of course, we have one coming up here in
a month or so. But since nobody makes noise, there's no impetus to hold
a new-members vote more than once a year. Please move this aspect of
the discussion to members@ where it belongs.
one more...
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Ted Husted wrote:
>>> In most cases, the underlying issue would be timing. We accept
>>> podlings and mentors year round. ASF Members we accept only
>>> once or twice a year.
>
>> I'd agree with you if I perceived Mentorship as a privilege.
>
> That seems irrelevant to Ted's point, which is that someone might be "ready",
> but there is a procedural gating factor of a twice (at most) annual election.
It's entirely relevant and I'm saying Ted's point is a red herring.
Which is the symptom and which is the cure? See above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> I'd agree with you if I perceived Mentorship as a privilege. I don't,
> I view it entirely as a responsibility to convey "What is Apache" to
> an aspiring podling. I don't disagree that any of our iPMC members
> (members of any PMC at the foundation, actually) are very clueful and ready
> to help new projects, since they are learning the internals of how projects
> operate at their respective projects.
>
> But there is nothing stopping individuals from becoming a contributor.
> I guess my point is that mentorship isn't a privilege, and shouldn't be
> viewed as a feather in one's cap. We need active mentors, not those who
> would sign up just for the title. ASF-Members-as-mentors has not really
> solved this issue, but I believe it still constrains the issue.
To be a member of the Incubator PMC, a volunteer would have either been
* A podling Mentor,
* An ASF Member who requested membership, or
* A non-Member elected to the Incubator PMC by a formal vote.
My point is that any individual who is serving on the Incubator PMC
but is not a Member, would have already demonstrated to the Incubator
PMC that he or she is responsible enough to be a Mentor.
If we could nominate someone as an ASF Member at any time, then our
recourse could e to elect that person as a ASF Member, and then accept
the podling proposal. But, the ASF Member events are few and far
between. If we forget to nominate someone (and we often do), it could
be a year before there's another opportunity (since we also forget to
schedule the votes).
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
> > In most cases, the underlying issue would be timing. We accept
> > podlings and mentors year round. ASF Members we accept only
> > once or twice a year.
> I'd agree with you if I perceived Mentorship as a privilege.
That seems irrelevant to Ted's point, which is that someone might be "ready", but there is a procedural gating factor of a twice (at most) annual election.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> If you can give me some counter examples of why non ASF member mentorship
>> is a positive thing, I'd certainly consider those.
>
> It seems inconsistent to me that we would say to someone, yes, you
> have earned sufficient merit to serve on the IPMC, but, no, you have
> not earned sufficient merit to be a podling Mentor.
>
> In most cases, the underlying issue would be timing. We accept
> podlings and mentors year round. ASF Members we accept only once or
> twice a year.
I'd agree with you if I perceived Mentorship as a privilege. I don't,
I view it entirely as a responsibility to convey "What is Apache" to
an aspiring podling. I don't disagree that any of our iPMC members
(members of any PMC at the foundation, actually) are very clueful and ready
to help new projects, since they are learning the internals of how projects
operate at their respective projects.
But there is nothing stopping individuals from becoming a contributor.
I guess my point is that mentorship isn't a privilege, and shouldn't be
viewed as a feather in one's cap. We need active mentors, not those who
would sign up just for the title. ASF-Members-as-mentors has not really
solved this issue, but I believe it still constrains the issue.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 4/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> If you can give me some counter examples of why non ASF member mentorship
> is a positive thing, I'd certainly consider those.
It seems inconsistent to me that we would say to someone, yes, you
have earned sufficient merit to serve on the IPMC, but, no, you have
not earned sufficient merit to be a podling Mentor.
In most cases, the underlying issue would be timing. We accept
podlings and mentors year round. ASF Members we accept only once or
twice a year.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
>
> As to a podling proposal, I would suggest that we expect all Mentors
> be ASF Members or IPMC Members. If someone would like to be a Mentor
> but is not already a ASF Member, we could always elect that person to
> the IPMC first, and then accept the proposal.
Keep in mind ASF Members are accepted into the iPMC by an ack, without
objections. Non-ASF members, although very helpful to the management
of the incubator, are accepted through the usual meritocracy you see
at every ASF project. (In the case of ASF Members they already passed
the 'merit' part of the meritocracy, as iPMC is a foundation-wide project
managing the goal of 'entry' to the foundation for new efforts.)
With 20/20 hindsight, I'm becoming much more loathe to accept non-members
as mentors. (As new podling contributors? Certainly! There is a low bar
to participate in most new efforts.) But the mentorship role is very
specific, and critical in guiding new efforts to ensure their success.
That's why I'm continuing to strongly favor no-less-than-three mentors
and ASF members-as-mentors.
When I say 20/20, I'm not suggesting to disrupt any incubating project.
I'd also evaluate 'why non-ASF person Joe should be this effort's mentor'
statements on a case-by-case basis. But the typical case indicates to
me a few possibilities, 1. not enough member involvement to have three
per podling, 2. too many incubating podlings at the same time to continue
effective oversight of them all, 3. would Joe be trying to inject hisself
into podling X without measurable podling X merit, and finally 4. has the
ASF overlooked nominating Joe for ASF Membership?
ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the
ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means
they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific
issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in
similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble. They also have
made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are members). That
gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less to prove, and
can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in the trenches,
where egos can get in the way.
That said, there are dozens of things our iPMC members do to help the
incubator, aside from mentoring. Our non-ASF member iPMC folks are all
terrific illustrations of this.
If you can give me some counter examples of why non ASF member mentorship
is a positive thing, I'd certainly consider those.
Yours,
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> how it works ATM is that a member posts a request and the chair acts:
> there's nothing automatic about it
There is no vote (unless someone wants to object), and the process was voted
upon by the PMC. The PMC Chair does have the clerical role, but that's not
the same as serving by the grace of the Chair.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 4/13/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> > members who wish to join the IPMC do so by the grace of the chair
> > (they send a request to the list and then the chair acts)
>
> No, it isn't grace of the chair. The Incubator PMC voted to adopt the
> policy towards ASF Members. It isn't an act of the Chair at all.
how it works ATM is that a member posts a request and the chair acts:
there's nothing automatic about it
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> In principle, I would suggest that we grant IPMC karma to Members in
> the same way we grant karma to private lists.
The Incubator PMC formally voted long along to adopt the policy that ASF
Members are entitled to join the Incubator PMC upon request. Technically,
we left room for a vote if someone wants to say NO, but that has never been
done, nor a hint that anyone were ever so inclined.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 4/13/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Ted Husted wrote:
>> > On 4/12/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> mentors are elected to the IPMC by the proposal approval vote
>>
>> Elected by being nominated to the iPMC through an iPMC member's
>> nomination of them (same as everywhere).
>
> this isn't how it works ATM
Either you or I had snipped the sentences down too much - this was
referring to NON-ASF-Members being voted on to the Incubator PMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 4/13/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
> > On 4/12/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> mentors are elected to the IPMC by the proposal approval vote
>
> Elected by being nominated to the iPMC through an iPMC member's nomination
> of them (same as everywhere).
this isn't how it works ATM
if you want it to work this way you need to proposal a change in policy
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/12/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> mentors are elected to the IPMC by the proposal approval vote
Elected by being nominated to the iPMC through an iPMC member's nomination
of them (same as everywhere).
>> members who wish to join the IPMC do so by the grace of the chair
>> (they send a request to the list and then the chair acts)
>
> In principle, I would suggest that we grant IPMC karma to Members in
> the same way we grant karma to private lists. Or in the same way that
> Infra uses Membership as one filter for root/sudo access to ASF
> machines. Being granted, upon request, a seat on the IPMC is one more
> element of ASF Member karma.
>
> I would also venture that, in the normal course, the chair has no
> special powers. If grace were being granted, I would expect that it is
> being graned by the PMC, and the chair is merely acting on behalf of
> the PMC's standing orders.
Correct all around. One more observation. incubator@apache.org is yet
another committee, but one with special properties; <INS>/<DEL> fledgling
projects into the foundation. As such, it's sort of a committee of the
whole - we need all the /willing/ members to step up and contribute as
they like for us to successfully grow the ASF without steering too far
off course.
So yes - the iPMC voted that this be it's process w.r.t. members. Not
necessarily applicable to the typical PMC, but we a the most diverse
group at the foundation and have encouraged that to continue. We hope
every member who is wanting to grow (or wanting to throttle the growth)
of the foundation shows up here where it matters.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 4/12/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > but
> > it presumes the Mentor == ASF Member (and all members may join the iPMC
> > with a ping-ack). Veto to that interpretation - you were right... needs
> > to be updated.
>
> this is a new and radically different interpretation. changing to this
> process a policy vote.
Agreed. The notion of a Mentor continues to evolve and reading
presumptions into the documenation is, well, presumptious. :)
>
> mentors are elected to the IPMC by the proposal approval vote
>
> members who wish to join the IPMC do so by the grace of the chair
> (they send a request to the list and then the chair acts)
In principle, I would suggest that we grant IPMC karma to Members in
the same way we grant karma to private lists. Or in the same way that
Infra uses Membership as one filter for root/sudo access to ASF
machines. Being granted, upon request, a seat on the IPMC is one more
element of ASF Member karma.
I would also venture that, in the normal course, the chair has no
special powers. If grace were being granted, I would expect that it is
being graned by the PMC, and the chair is merely acting on behalf of
the PMC's standing orders.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> members who wish to join the IPMC do so by the grace of the chair
> (they send a request to the list and then the chair acts)
No, it isn't grace of the chair. The Incubator PMC voted to adopt the
policy towards ASF Members. It isn't an act of the Chair at all.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 4/10/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
> > I'm confused. The Process Description [1] seems to be clear:
> >
> > The Mentor is automatically made a member of the Incubator PMC, and
> > reports to both the PMC and the Sponsor about your overall health and
> > suitability for eventual inclusion within the Apache Community (or
> > recommendation to terminate).
>
> -1 to that description. There *is* an implicit automatic process,
our organisational structure does not allow automatic processes, only
human ones by actors officially recognised by the foundation
> but
> it presumes the Mentor == ASF Member (and all members may join the iPMC
> with a ping-ack). Veto to that interpretation - you were right... needs
> to be updated.
this is a new and radically different interpretation. changing to this
process a policy vote.
mentors are elected to the IPMC by the proposal approval vote
members who wish to join the IPMC do so by the grace of the chair
(they send a request to the list and then the chair acts)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> I'm confused. The Process Description [1] seems to be clear:
>
> The Mentor is automatically made a member of the Incubator PMC, and
> reports to both the PMC and the Sponsor about your overall health and
> suitability for eventual inclusion within the Apache Community (or
> recommendation to terminate).
-1 to that description. There *is* an implicit automatic process, but
it presumes the Mentor == ASF Member (and all members may join the iPMC
with a ping-ack). Veto to that interpretation - you were right... needs
to be updated.
> If there should be a separate vote, there's no mention of it anywhere.
> Is this just old information in need of updating?
Not necessarily old, but it has the implicit assumption. If we rephrase
as "Mentor must be an iPMC member", and change 'automatic' reference into
instructions to an ASF Member that they may email the iPMC with a request
to be added, then things become clearer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> to actively lead in the discharge of their duties (listed above).
>
> I don't see that list. It's a confusing sentence to me. "Mentors work to
> make sure no mentoring is needed, i.e. make sure that the podling
> becomes a self-managing community" seems clearer to me.
++1 - I wholeheartedly agree
>> Upon acceptance by the Incubator PMC, the Mentor automatically
> becomes a member of the Incubator PMC.
>
> Not completely true.
Or rather, entirely untrue. As I mentioned before, members can easily
become iPMC members by simply messaging private@i.a.o, who in turn will
ask the board for an ack (as all other committees do after a vote). And
they need to request this themselves, and then subscribe themselves.
But for a non-Member, it's entirely untrue. It's always been required
to vote on adding an iPMC member for non-ASF members, just as at every
other PMC at the ASF.
The mentors of a project, as Leo hints, are as flexible as "add me if
you'll have me" or "I'm in purgatory and looking to lighten my workload,
and don't have the cycles to really do a decent job of mentoring right
now". It's that simple to be added or removed from the mentor list,
since a mentor doesn't have specific responsibilities.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I'm confused.
I can imagine. I think everyone is confused. That's what you get when
you try and write these process descriptions so formally, since the
actual process is not as formal. The "A mentor is... a permanent
member of the [ASF]" description on that page is wrong insofar that
it doesn't reflect reality. In fact, the entire description of a
mentor is a bit off if you ask me.
> A Mentor is a role undertaken by a permanent member of the Apache
Software Foundation
nope. But they're always committers and they always know "how the ASF
works" (insofar as anyone knows :-)).
> and is chosen by the Sponsor
nope. Mentors are chosen by the podling, the incubator PMC, the
Sponsor, or themselves. "I'll volunteer to mentor if you'll have me"
is a common phrase.
> to actively lead in the discharge of their duties (listed above).
I don't see that list. It's a confusing sentence to me. "Mentors work
to make sure no mentoring is needed, i.e. make sure that the podling
becomes a self-managing community" seems clearer to me.
> Upon acceptance by the Incubator PMC, the Mentor automatically
becomes a member of the Incubator PMC.
Not completely true. They have to subscribe (or be subscribed to) to
the private@ mailing list, the subscription request must be approved,
an e-mail must be sent to private@, and then the Incubator VP must
send a request for an ACK message to the board@, then the board has
to ACK, and then the Incubator VP must update a file in SVN, and then
they're a PMC member. The "automatic" word comes from the fact that
the IPMC doesn't vote on this seperately.
> A Mentor has specific responsibilities towards the Incubator PMC,
the Sponsor and towards the members of the assigned Podling.
Hrmpf. A mentor has rather undefined and vague responsibilities,
namely to "do mentoring".
> The Process Description [1] seems to be clear:
>
> The Mentor is automatically made a member of the Incubator PMC
See above. Of course this implies that when the IPMC votes on a
proposal it'd better check that it accepts the mentoring list. Of
course, it's really hard to figure out whether a particular person
would be a good mentor for a particular project in a particular
timeframe. Fortunately, it is always easy to add a mentor, or for a
non-mentor to fill in a few mentoring gaps.
> , and reports to both the PMC and the Sponsor about your overall
> health and suitability for eventual inclusion within the Apache
> Community (or recommendation to terminate).
Hmm. The podling community as a whole should be responsible for
reporting. Mentors can (and do) fill the gap until the community is
self-managing.
> If there should be a separate vote, there's no mention of it
> anywhere. Is this just old information in need of updating?
Well it seems it does need updating, but no, there's no seperate vote.
> Or is it the intent that after receiving a Sponsor's request to the
> Incubator to accept a candidate, someone on the IPMC starts a vote
> to accept the non-Member proposed Mentor(s) as an IPMC member?
Nope.
> And then separately, the IPMC votes to accept the candidate as a
> podling? The implication is that if not all proposed Mentors are
> IPMC members, the vote to accept the candidate is out of order.
>
> I'll be happy to propose a patch once I understand what it should say.
Thanks Craig! Process descriptions always seem hard to read and
write, ways to improve the wording are always sought...
- Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote]
RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I'm confused. The Process Description [1] seems to be clear:
The Mentor is automatically made a member of the Incubator PMC, and
reports to both the PMC and the Sponsor about your overall health and
suitability for eventual inclusion within the Apache Community (or
recommendation to terminate).
If there should be a separate vote, there's no mention of it
anywhere. Is this just old information in need of updating? Or is it
the intent that after receiving a Sponsor's request to the Incubator
to accept a candidate, someone on the IPMC starts a vote to accept
the non-Member proposed Mentor(s) as an IPMC member? And then
separately, the IPMC votes to accept the candidate as a podling? The
implication is that if not all proposed Mentors are IPMC members, the
vote to accept the candidate is out of order.
I'll be happy to propose a patch once I understand what it should say.
Thanks,
Craig
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Process_Description.html
On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, once the proposal is accepted, the Mentors listed
>> on the proposal become IPMC members. Once the proposal is accepted,
>> and the group becomes a podling, then, yes, all Mentors and IPMC
>> Members.
>
> The Mentors being listed is interesting, but we had better be
> voting on PMC
> members separately. As contrasted with a single vote for the
> Committer and
> PPMC roster, if someone listed is not a PMC member, and not an ASF
> Member, I
> don't think that conflating those two votes is a good idea. In
> fact, I'd
> say that it is a bad idea.
>
>> As to a podling proposal, I would suggest that we expect all Mentors
>> be ASF Members or IPMC Members. If someone would like to be a Mentor
>> but is not already a ASF Member, we could always elect that person to
>> the IPMC first, and then accept the proposal.
>
> +1
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> As I understand it, once the proposal is accepted, the Mentors listed
> on the proposal become IPMC members. Once the proposal is accepted,
> and the group becomes a podling, then, yes, all Mentors and IPMC
> Members.
The Mentors being listed is interesting, but we had better be voting on PMC
members separately. As contrasted with a single vote for the Committer and
PPMC roster, if someone listed is not a PMC member, and not an ASF Member, I
don't think that conflating those two votes is a good idea. In fact, I'd
say that it is a bad idea.
> As to a podling proposal, I would suggest that we expect all Mentors
> be ASF Members or IPMC Members. If someone would like to be a Mentor
> but is not already a ASF Member, we could always elect that person to
> the IPMC first, and then accept the proposal.
+1
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
As I understand it, once the proposal is accepted, the Mentors listed
on the proposal become IPMC members. Once the proposal is accepted,
and the group becomes a podling, then, yes, all Mentors and IPMC
Members.
But, in order to be listed on a proposal, AFAIK, a Mentor does not
need to be a pre-existing IPMC member.
The question is what prerequisites do we expect of Mentors who are
listed on proposals that have not yet been accepted by the IPMC.
ASF Members? ASF Committers? Human? Sapient being? Carbon-based lifeform?
Mentoring a podling is one way to become an IPMC member. Another way
is to be installed by the IPMC directly, like any other ASF project. I
would suggest that the IPMC can vote anyone onto the PMC, just like
any other ASF project.
As to a podling proposal, I would suggest that we expect all Mentors
be ASF Members or IPMC Members. If someone would like to be a Mentor
but is not already a ASF Member, we could always elect that person to
the IPMC first, and then accept the proposal.
-Ted.
On 4/8/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> I see that I've already commented on this thread without replying. ;-) To
> continue, a Mentor is a member of the Incubator PMC "who will guide the
> Candidate through the Incubation Process." Key point being an Incubator PMC
> Member. If I recall correctly, the reason for the "at least one" clause was
> because a small minority objected to non-ASF Members. I'm sure that the
> discussions are archived.
>
> The rest is a question regarding PMC membership. We've had non-ASF Members
> elected as Incubator PMC Members, and any ASF Member is entitled to
> Incubator PMC Membership.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
HTH, Ted <http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org