Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC. There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation). A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes to a vote. On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and unbiased critical validation going on. So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project. As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes, releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance. Paul On 7/4/06, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shesh...what makes you think it was done lightly? As the rest of my post indicated I'd taken the time to downloaded and try out their release, even pointed out a problem in the readme files I'd found. And I'd looked at things like the notice and license files that have cased problems in other incubating project releases i've participated in to see how servicemix compared. All that takes time and I spent the time on it to say thanks for them spending similar time on the releases I've done. ...ant On 7/4/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:08:48PM +0100, ant elder wrote: A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes. Huh what? Exactly what semantics attach to a +1 is always a muddy discussion, but IMNSHO they really ought not be thanks for something unrelated. Its utterly confusing. Thanks! LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC. There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation). A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes to a vote. On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and unbiased critical validation going on. So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project. As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes, releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance. the only downside to this plan would be to create YAR (yet another role). we already have sponsor, champion and mentor. it's hard enough to explain these without adding another one to the list. so, i'd probably prefer to reuse the mentor role. IMHO a successful incubation requires at least one mentor to adopt an active role. this is akin to the role that a chair plays in a standard project. if a distinction is needed between mentors then perhaps the initial ppmc (consisting only of mentors) could elect a ppmc chair who would adopt this more active mode. this would also allow (in time as the ppmc matures towards the end of the incubation) the chair to stand down to be replaced by a non-mentor and adopt a more passive role. - robert
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
A couple of points in relation to the discussion. Firstly I'd like to make it clear I do not condone any blind +1ing. I don't think anyone on this list does. In fact exactly the opposite. The aim of this discussion was to come up with ways to ensure that projects have people willing to do the hard work to validate their releases, graduation etc. I take your point about Yet Another Role. On the other hand it takes 3 binding +1s to do a release, and projects typically have only one mentor. It seems to me that a few people like you Robert take on a large part of the burden of doing detailed reviews, so I was simply trying to figure out a way of spreading that load. Paul On 7/5/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC. There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation). A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes to a vote. On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and unbiased critical validation going on. So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project. As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes, releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance. the only downside to this plan would be to create YAR (yet another role). we already have sponsor, champion and mentor. it's hard enough to explain these without adding another one to the list. so, i'd probably prefer to reuse the mentor role. IMHO a successful incubation requires at least one mentor to adopt an active role. this is akin to the role that a chair plays in a standard project. if a distinction is needed between mentors then perhaps the initial ppmc (consisting only of mentors) could elect a ppmc chair who would adopt this more active mode. this would also allow (in time as the ppmc matures towards the end of the incubation) the chair to stand down to be replaced by a non-mentor and adopt a more passive role. - robert -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I take your point about Yet Another Role. On the other hand it takes 3 binding +1s to do a release, and projects typically have only one mentor. It seems to me that a few people like you Robert take on a large part of the burden of doing detailed reviews, so I was simply trying to figure out a way of spreading that load. i agree that we should try spread the load. i just think it better reuse the existing name whilst doing so (mentor). the well understood chair role could be extended to ppmc's and be used to describe the active part of the current mentor role. - robert
Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:08:48PM +0100, ant elder wrote: A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes. Huh what? Exactly what semantics attach to a +1 is always a muddy discussion, but IMNSHO they really ought not be thanks for something unrelated. Its utterly confusing. Thanks! LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Shesh...what makes you think it was done lightly? As the rest of my post indicated I'd taken the time to downloaded and try out their release, even pointed out a problem in the readme files I'd found. And I'd looked at things like the notice and license files that have cased problems in other incubating project releases i've participated in to see how servicemix compared. All that takes time and I spent the time on it to say thanks for them spending similar time on the releases I've done. ...ant On 7/4/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:08:48PM +0100, ant elder wrote: A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes. Huh what? Exactly what semantics attach to a +1 is always a muddy discussion, but IMNSHO they really ought not be thanks for something unrelated. Its utterly confusing. Thanks! LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
