On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> Perhaps it would make sense to see how the > model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here: > ... [snip] ... > Why can't the IPMC work like that? Well, to a large extent it does. Here > are the same items expressed from the perspective of the IPMC and its > relationship with PPMCs. > Your proposal is not terribly different from proposals like what Chris floated a year or so ago. Yours adds a layer of entities. Chris' removes a layer. Chris' proposal is essentially that Incubating projects become PMCs instead of PPMCs. IIRC, his proposal still incorporated mentoring and oversight to ensure that incubating projects are operating according to Apache principles. Perhaps there's a model where incubating PMCs report directly to the board, as with Chris' proposal, but with a "dotted-line" reporting structure to a mentoring body. This mentoring body would be responsible for vetting releases and new committers as the IPMC does now. But its role would be more of a guiding role than an oversight role. The podlings I've participated in would not have suffered from such a model. Flex, for example, had a board member and 2 ASF members as mentors. The IPMC did not have to provide much insight beyond what we provided. The Incubator provides the following benefits to incubating projects: * mentoring on ASF principles and procedures * vetting of releases * help growing community * a temporary community while podling community develops It seems to me that a model like what Chris has proposed or what I am proposing could still provide all those benefits without the bureaucracy of a super-IPMC. Greg
