I read it thoroughly and there are many gems in there. You could see it's battle tested and it is generally a very pragmatic approach to neutrality.
I have a few things, however, that I think might be worth adding - from our own experience in Airflow. 1) I think this document does not really describe (and it should IMHO - maybe I missed it - the way vendor neutrality potential issues should be reported and flagged in the way that is best for all parties. First - the question is - who... * who should monitor for vendor neutrality - I think it's good from the day one to stress that every single PPMC member is supposed to watch out for this and that's everyone's responsibility * of course, when it's everyone's responsibility, then it's often also "no-one's responsibility" - so possibly mentors initially should be more tasks with watching for that signs (especially that's it's easier to see it from outside than from inside sometimes) * but also there are other people - trademarks@ (i.e. branding), infrastructure (by reviewing website)., automation (website analysis tooling we have) ... maybe more * when PPMC graduates, that also becomes a board "shepherd" role - so maybe in this case that's somewhat incubator's report reviewer's (?) role .... Then - the next is how ... and this is mostly to those who raise any concern: * raising it in the way that does not assume bad intention * do it with "curiosity" and "inquisitiveness" rather than with presumptions * try to get more context and understanding and more as a conversation and getting to constructive solutions rather than confrontational * explain "whys" not dictate "hows" - so that the PPMC can discuss and solve it themselves * provide guidance and mentorship rather than "heavy hammer" without understanding the situation I think even seasoned ASF members sometimes forget that it's all about building community and consensus and partnership and collaboration, not about "directing others" and "patronising" them and it's very easy to get into this kind of confrontational tone. I think that should also be periodically re-tought to existing members, even board members and VPs, because they can fall into the trap of "besieged fortress syndrome" where they have to fight with others rather than cooperate. 2) Might be controversial, and I am not even sure whether it could be easily added somehow.. but I think there is an interesting pattern of "deliberate stewardship" which might be worth mentioning here and we preached and practiced it in Airflow 3 for example which might be worth discussing and having some mention in the "neutrality" area. Sometimes the project needs a very well coordinated effort - everyone moving in the same direction. This is extremely difficult when you apply distributed and neutral decision making, It's a bit of a variant of "design by committee" that often brings worse result than "single entity decision making". I think in such cases, the institution of "delegating stewardship" for some time /until we reach some goal - especially when it's agreed by all parties, stakeholders, competition is a very important "decision making" process. In case of Airflow 3 development process - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+3+Dev+call%3A+Meeting+Notes (which we decided about 1.5 year ago and we are about to complete now), it's quite important to allow the case where there is a "strong stewardship". One accepted by everyone, where organisation of the process is (with full oversight) placed in the hands of some entity (might be a vendor). With 100% transparency of decision making of course (on list), with recording and tracking everything, and with ultimate decision making still in the hands of the PMC (absolutely), but where the PMC trusts an entity to "facilitiate" the process. Organise meetings, keep notes, propose priorities for everyone etc. etc. That requires a lot of trust and merit by the people running it, but when done well, it might lead to very good results (case in point - Airflow 3 seems to be a huge achievement and done in remarkably short time as result of the whole community collaborating). If you don't consider the temporary nature of it, the trust and merit, transparency etc. - you could easily mistake that for "taking control" or "skewing decision making", but for me this is more of a practical stewardship over certain milestones. I wonder if any of that above make sense, but I would love if it sparked some discussion :) J On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 11:33 PM Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I’ve published a new Incubator guide on Neutrality in Practice [1] to > follow on from and compliment [2] > > The guide explains what neutrality means at the ASF, why it matters for > podlings, and the practical things communities can do to avoid dependence > on any single individual or organisation. It also outlines common > misunderstandings, early warning signs, and what mentors should look for as > part of regular oversight. > > Podlings can use it to assess their governance and report more clearly on > neutrality. Mentors may find it a helpful reference for check-ins and for > explaining expectations to new contributors. > > Feedback or suggestions for improvement are welcome. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > > 1. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Neutrality+In+Practice > 2. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Vendor+Neutrality > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
