Thanks for this. A few quick comments:
i) The proposal says that the "mentor" is drawn from the Foundation
membership - does that mean the mentor could be any member, or in
practice should be a member of the Incubator PMC (for example)?
ii) As I understand the process, once a proposal is ready, a vote takes
place. Let's say the vote passes (according to whatever voting rules are
made) - first - who actually votes on the proposal (the whole OWF
membership - or those subscribed to the incubator list for example)?
Secondly, when the Incubator PMC receives the vote results, does that
mean they "automatically" recommend the project to the Board for moving
beyond incubation? Are there any other, potentially more limited (ie.
board level or incubator PMC) votes?
iii) Who is responsible for establishing "rough consensus" [1] on a
proposal - the mentor, the person proposing, or someone else - can it
vary per project? I would actually suggest a direct edit to the line
where it says "some sort of consensus" to directly say "rough consensus"
to link it to the historical sense of that phrase (again, see [1]).
iv) A related comment is just to ask whether the line "What are the
roles of people involved in a project?" is intended to get someone to
fill in that section? I guess I would say as a start something like
"The proposal should have an editor who is responsible for establishing
rough consensus around the text of the proposal, based on his or her own
edits and those of the other contributors. The editor need not be the
person who initiated the proposal."
As some additional related reading material, the IETF working group
process document, RFC2418 [2] may be helpful.
Regards,
- johnk
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus>
[2] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418>
Hi David,
Thanks for this. A few quick comments:
i) The proposal says that the "mentor" is drawn from the Foundation
membership - does that mean the mentor could be any member, or in
practice should be a member of the Incubator PMC (for example)?
ii) As I understand the process, once a proposal is ready, a vote takes
place. Let's say the vote passes (according to whatever voting rules are
made) - first - who actually votes on the proposal (the whole OWF
membership - or those subscribed to the incubator list for example)?
Secondly, when the Incubator PMC receives the vote results, does that
mean they "automatically" recommend the project to the Board for moving
beyond incubation? Are there any other, potentially more limited (ie.
board level or incubator PMC) votes?
iii) Who is responsible for establishing "rough consensus" [1] on a
proposal - the mentor, the person proposing, or someone else - can it
vary per project? I would actually suggest a direct edit to the line
where it says "some sort of consensus" to directly say "rough consensus"
to link it to the historical sense of that phrase (again, see [1]).
iv) A related comment is just to ask whether the line "What are the
roles of people involved in a project?" is intended to get someone to
fill in that section? I guess I would say as a start something like
"The proposal should have an editor who is responsible for establishing
rough consensus around the text of the proposal, based on his or her own
edits and those of the other contributors. The editor need not be the
person who initiated the proposal."
There should be time lines called out for votes but I think that
applies beyond just the incubator. We'll also need a page like
http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html though hopefully a little
simpler. Apache recommends at least 72 hours for every vote thread.
I'm fine if you remove the size bit, agree that it is more important
to not be one person than if you are seven.
--David