On 08/17/2010 11:39 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Ross Gardler<rgard...@apache.org>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 8:45:01 AM
Subject: Re: Radical revamp
On 17/08/2010 13:21, Joe Schaefer wrote:
[...]
Isn't that why we encourage IPMC members to participate in
discussions about our podlings? How do we expect people
to learn without dialog and discussion- by reading our constantly-
in-need-of-attention docs?
We should be trusting our mentors to know when to ask for help
and when to trust their instincts. We should be helping our mentors
understand the boundaries of their expertise. We should be helping
mentors understand what mentorship is - it should not be a box ticking
exercise.
I would be far more convinced that we should be "trusting our mentors"
if mentors actually participated in writing incubator documentation,
or engaged constructively in threads like this. The fact is there
are no group controls over what a mentor says or does, it's purely
a voluntary exercise, by people with limited to no training, with no
direct benefit nor responsiblity related to it.
[...]
In this very thread a self confessed newcomer said that their
experience of the incubator was just fine. Then they went on
to say that the Apache Way is not about modifying processes
to best fit your individual needs.
This, to me, is incorrect.
Perhaps.
The Apache Way works precisely because we allow projects to
change (most) processes to suit their individual communities.
Whilst there are a few invariant processes to ensure IP is
managed properly and communities are meritocratic pretty much
everything can be modified on a per proejct/per community basis.
That is the vast majority of processes in the ASF are "best practice"
not check lists to be ticked off.
IPMC members should indeed participate in discussions about
"what is the best way to solve problem x within this community",
that is how we learn about best practice. We should *not* be
writing more rules to constrain projects in ways that is not
necessary for the Apache Way and is not necessary for the
legal oversight of the foundation.
What I've been trying to explain here with my "experiment" is that
the best way to teach people about the Apache Way is to let them
experience it for themselves. We don't actually do that here,
and I'm trying to push a view that allows us to actually try it
a little and see what happens.
I've been following this thread, and have another mail written, but not
posted,
maybe I will at some point... however I find myself trying to understand
what would
be the key attributes that would make this proposal a wild success, or a
failure for
a podling. By success, I mean a well run ASF project. The proposal has
caught my
imagination, but I'm trying to understand the parameters of guidance in
this model.
To this question, (what will make this model succeed or fail) I find
myself not coming
to defensible answers... I would love to see thoughts of others on this
question.
The thread implies it comes down to the 3+ members on the project.
thoughts...
Carl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
