...

At the Apache Software Foundation, governance emerges from collaboration, not authority. Projects thrive when contributors make decisions together, in public, and with respect for different perspectives. Votes confirm the consensus that has already been built on the mailing list. This  This is the culture that enables hundreds of Apache projects to evolve independently while sharing a common foundation: The Apache Way.

In the Incubator, podlings turn those principles into daily habitslearn to apply these principles in everyday practice. Mentors help guide communities transition as they move from informal decision-making to public, transparent discussions; decisions to open discussion, from individual initiative effort to collective shared ownership; and from mentor guidance to , and ultimately toward the self-governance , as exemplified by the expected of an Apache Project Management Committee (PMC).

This guide shows how ASF culture is applied in practice. It covers how projects:

• build and record consensus through discussion and voting;

• develop trust through contribution and transparency (“trust through contribution”);

• handle conflict constructively and inclusively;

• balance independence with accountability; and

• protect user trust through privacy, branding, and policy awareness.

The examples and scenarios are anonymized composites drawn from based on more than a decade of real ASF experiences drawn from public mailing lists.. They illustrate what works, what doesn’t, and how communities learn by doing, from unclear votes to mentor disengagement to cultural misunderstandings.

Who this is for.: Mentors, PPMC members, podling contributors, and future PMC members who want practical, copy-and-paste seek practical guidance rooted in ASF norms.

What this is not.: A policy manual. Authoritative Official ASF policies are available on ASF sites, focusing published elsewhere; this guide focuses on how to apply them in everyday project work.

Each discussion, vote, and release presents an opportunity to practice these values, build trust through contribution, and help a project evolve into a sustainable Apache community.

...

• Read actively: Pause at the reflection questions and consider how your project would respond.
• Discuss with others: Share scenarios or questions on your project’s dev@ list, and consensus grows through conversation.
• Connect the dots:  Link what you learn here with related materials: ASF Values, Governance  Governance in Practice, Voting & Consensus in Practice, Mentor Training, Vendor Neutrality, Branding & Identity, Graduation Criteria and Graduation & Beyond.
• Apply it immediately: Try one improvement in your project’s process, for example, a clearer vote summary or a more inclusive discussion pattern.

...

All examples and scenarios in this guide are anonymized composites drawn from public ASF mailing list discussions and Incubator reports. They reflect real challenges and lessons learned, without naming specific projects or individuals. This respects community members’ privacy, avoids singling out mistakes, and keeps the focus on learning and shared improvement. The Incubator values open discussion along with compassion , empathy, and respect for volunteers who are learning The Apache Way through experience.

...

Voting and Consensus

Voting and consensus are at the heart of how Apache communities make decisions. At the ASF, a vote is not just a tally of +1s, it is the visible record of discussion, agreement, and shared responsibility. Healthy projects use voting to confirm consensus, not to replace it.

...

"If there are no objections within 72 hours, we’ll we will proceed with the merge."

After three days, one mentor, who had been travelling, objected, saying the merge introduced licensing complications. By then, the code had already been merged and discussed in other channels. The mentor felt ignored, while the community felt blindsided by the late objection. The thread devolved into arguments about whether the decision was final and who had the right to reopen it.

Reflection questions

1. What caused confusion about the lazy consensus process?
2. How should the community respond when an objection comes after action has been taken?

...

• Reopen discussion to consider the objection and, if needed, revert the change.
• In future, clearly state objection periods and follow up with a “no objections received” message to confirm consensus.
• Mentors can model good practice by keeping both decisions and closures visible on the mailing listposting brief summary messages that confirm the outcome of lazy consensus discussions.

...

Scenario: Ambiguous Vote Scope

...

"[VOTE] Approve architecture changes to support for a new storage backend"

Some contributors treated it as a binding decision vote, while others saw it as an informal consensus check. After tallying the votes (+5, 0, -1), disagreement broke out over whether the result was binding and who counted as eligible voters. The ambiguity created mistrust; some thought the -1 blocked progress, while others argued it was only advisory.

...

1. What steps could the PPMC have taken before starting the vote to make its scope and eligibility clear?
2. How can mentors model and teach consistent ASF voting practices to prevent confusion like this?

Possible path forward

• The mentor should can encourage the community to pause and revisit the discussion before treating the vote as final.
• Remind the podling that consensus comes first, votes are used to confirm shared understanding, not to decide by majority.
• For future threads, use clear subject tags and intent markers:
  • [DISCUSS] for exploration and consensus building
  • [VOTE] once agreement has been reached and the community is ready to record it
  • [RESULT] to summarize the outcome and next steps
• Encourage the PPMC to document when and how formal votes are used; discussion first, vote secondtheir own conventions for using formal votes, emphasising that discussion precedes votes and confirms consensus.

...

Scenario: Cross-List Release Vote Confusion

A podling successfully held a release vote on its own dev@ list, reaching four binding +1s and no objections. Believing it was complete, the release manager published the artifacts and announced the result. A few days later, an IPMC member noticed the vote had never been mirrored to the general@incubator list for IPMC review and approval. The vote had to be repeated, and the release was withdrawn until the second round was completed.

Reflection questions

1. Why is it important to hold Incubator release votes on both the podling and general@ listspodling’s dev@ list and the general@incubator list?
2. How can mentors and PPMCs communicate clearly about which steps are required before declaring a vote result final?

...

• Retract the published release and announce the correction openly, explaining that the IPMC vote was missed.Restart the vote following the proper procedure: first on the podling’s dev@ list, then on the general@incubator list once the first vote passesthe correction openly, explaining that the IPMC vote was missed.
• Restart the vote on the dev@ list, then repeat it on general@incubator once the first passes.
• Update the release checklist so both steps happen before announcing the result.

...

Scenario: The Off-List Decision

A podling’s contributors agree discussed and agreed in a GitHub issue to change the project’s API design. The discussion seems appears to be settled, as everyone active on the repository has approved the change, and the pull request is has been merged. A week later, a mentor notices there was no corresponding discussion or record on the dev@ list. When the topic is raised, some participants argue that “it was already agreed on in GitHub comments.” Others had never seen the conversation and felt excluded. The mentor explains reminds the community that ASF decisions must need to be made discussed and visible on the project’s public mailing list, not only in tools or private channels.

...

A podling has been active for several months, with regular commits, discussions, and releases. However, one of its listed mentors hasn’t posted to the mailing list in nearly half a yearfor nearly six months. When the quarterly report is due, the remaining mentors realize they’ve been the only ones signing off. The absent mentor’s name is still listed, but they haven’t responded to pings or voted on any releases.

...

One mentor has become the de facto leader of a podling. They initiate most discussions, determine priorities, and frequently merge pull requests without waiting for community review. Although everything functions appears to run smoothly, other contributors are increasingly have become hesitant to disagree or propose suggest alternatives. The mentor’s good intentions have created quiet dependence rather than community independence.

...

During a disagreement over release timing, a mentor tells the podling to “wait for my approval before proceeding.” Several PPMC members feel uneasy, they . They thought the project was supposed to be self-governing.
The mentor later explains they only meant to ensure the ASF policy was followed, but the tone created confusion about authority.

...

Several active PPMC members work for the same company that initially proposed the podling. As the project matures, company goals begin start to align with influence community priorities, such as marketing deadlines, roadmap direction, or product integration timelines. Decisions on the dev@ list often mirror internal discussions, and other contributors hesitate to question them. When a mentor raises this concern, the PPMC insists that “everyone agrees internally,” but little discussion happens in public.

...

• Encourage all technical and strategic discussions to take place publicly on the mailing list, regardless of any prior internal agreements.
• When posting on behalf of an employer, clarify whose view you represent and invite others to comment openly.
• Rotate release managers, vote initiators, and report drafters to ensure shared ownership beyond a single organization.
• Mentors can remind the community that ASF projects operate by public consensus, not by company alignment, corporate . Corporate support is welcome, but direction comes from the community.
• If necessary, the PPMC or IPMC can invite new contributors from outside the company to broaden participation and strengthen neutrality.

...

During several community discussions, a mentor and two PPMC members consistently argue for a particular technical direction. Later, it is discovered that all three work for the same company, which plans to integrate the feature into its product. Their affiliation wasn’t hidden, concealed but it was never clearly stated in the relevant threads or votes. New contributors assumed the support was broad and independent. When this is raised, the individuals insist they were “just speaking as community members.” The incident damages trust and prompts a wider discussion about disclosure and transparency.

...

A podling submits its quarterly report, describing the community as “active and healthy,” which highlights several releases and broad participation. Mentors and IPMC members, however, are aware that mailing list traffic has decreased, and contributor engagement has been inconsistent. When asked, the PPMC explains that they “didn’t want to sound negative” in a public report. Mentors remind the community that reports are not public relations statements, ; they are a core part of the ASF’s oversight and learning process.

Reflection questions

1. Why must podling reports reflect reality, not just optimism?
2. What responsibilities do mentors and the PPMC share for ensuring accurate reporting?
3. How can mentors help communities be open about problems without fear of criticism?

...

In one podling, contributors became frustrated when requests for setting to set up mailing lists and publishing websites publish the website took longer than expected. Some members complained that ASF Infrastructure was “blocking” progress and proposed creating external systems to work around delays. Mentors reminded the community that ASF Infrastructure is a shared service supporting all projects.

...

1. How can a podling plan Infra requests so that their timelines don’t derail delay progress?
2. What’s the right way to communicate status and unblock work without creating policy or branding problems?
3. How can mentors model respectful collaboration with Infrastructure while keeping the podling moving?

...

In one podling proposal, mentors were added late in the process. Some were chosen added because they were well-known ASF Members or from worked for the same company as the proposers, rather than because they had the time or interest to mentor. Once the project entered incubation, those mentors were largely inactive, leaving the podling without needed guidance on releases, community building, and ASF processes.

...

1. What criteria should be used when selecting mentors for a new proposal?
2. How can the IPMC ensure mentors understand and commit to their responsibilities before a vote?
3. What should podlings do if a mentor is unresponsive or lacks relevant experience?

Possible path forward

• Choose mentors based on their engagement, availability, and complementary experience, rather than their reputation or affiliationcomplementary experience, viewing mentorship as an active commitment rather than a title.
• Encourage proposers to work with potential mentors early, before the proposal vote, to confirm mutual understanding.
• If a mentor is inactive, the podling should raise the issue on the incubator list and request a replacement through the normal process.

...

In one podling, mentors noticed that activity had slowed, releases were overdue, and a few individuals dominated discussions. Although these issues persisted for several quarters, the prodling podling did not report them, the . The mentors hesitated to raise them with the Incubator PMC, hoping the community would recover on its own. When the podling later proposed graduation, the IPMC was surprised to learn about the extent of the problems, and the vote was postponed pending corrective action.

...

• Mentors should inform the IPMC promptly when a podling exhibits sustained inactivity, release delays, or governance issues.
• Use private@incubator for sensitive concerns and general@incubator for public awareness and guidance.
• Encourage the PPMC to document challenges transparently in reports so the IPMC can assist before issues become critical.
• Treat escalation as part of responsible mentorship, not as failure, timely . Timely communication helps protect both the podling and the wider community.

...

Scenario: Conflicting Mentor Advice

In one podling, mentors gave different offered conflicting guidance on key incubation steps. One mentor told the community to proceed with a release candidate, while another advised waiting for additional license review. The podling, unsure which direction to follow, paused work and sought clarification on the incubator mailing list. The inconsistent advice created confusion and slowed progress until the mentors and the IPMC clarified expectations together.

Reflection questions

1. How can mentors coordinate to ensure their guidance is consistent and aligned with ASF policy?
2. What should a podling do when mentors provide conflicting or unclear instructionsguidance?
3. How can the IPMC help maintain a shared understanding of policies and mentor responsibilities?

...

Scenario: The Heated Thread

A technical debate about over the project’s build system becomes turns personal. Two contributors begin trading sharp remarks on the mailing list, each insisting their approach is correct. Other participants go silent, unsure uncertain how to intervenerespond. After several days, the discussion ends abruptly, but one contributor stops participating altogether.

...

• Acknowledge the tension and steer the conversation back to technical facts rather than personalities.
• Remind participants that ASF discussions must remain respectful and public, focusing on ideas rather ideas rather than individuals.
• Reach out privately (if appropriate) to the inactive contributor to check in and invite them back into a calmer, structured discussion.
• Summarize lessons learned in a closing email, showing transparency and reinforcing good communication norms.

...

A small group of contributors regularly discuss project direction in a private chat channel. Decisions are sometimes made there, then later announced on the mailing list. Other community members feel excluded and confused, unsure when or how or when these decisions were made. When a mentor raises the issue, the group says, “We were just being efficient.”

...

• Encourage the group to summarize any private discussion on the mailing list, capturing the key points and rationale.
• Reinforce the ASF principle that “if it didn’t happen on the list, it didn’t happen.”
• Normalize brief summaries, even short recaps help keep everyone informed.
• Mentors can help set a respectful tone by acknowledging efficiency concerns but explaining while reinforcing the long-term value of public archives for learning and accountability.

...

Scenario: Cultural Misunderstanding

A contributor from one region tends to write very brief, direct comments , which that others interpret as rude or dismissive. In turn, they feel frustrated that their efficiency is being criticized. The mailing list begins showing subtle tension, with people responding less or avoiding reviews from that person. A mentor notices and suspects it’s more a cultural difference than a personal conflict.

...

• Raise the issue gently on the mailing list or in a private note, framing it as a shared learning opportunity rather than a personal fault.
• Encourage contributors to assume good faith and ask clarifying questions when tone seems unclear.
• Add a short “communication norms” section to the podling’s wiki or README, reflecting the team’s diversity and shared expectations for tone and communication.
• Mentors can model inclusive phrasing and remind everyone that written tone varies across cultures.

...

Scenario: The Single-Maintainer Risk

A podling’s activity appears strong, with regular commits, quick pull-request merges, and responsive issue triage; however. However, nearly all of it is coming from one person. That contributor is also the release manager and primary reviewer. When they take a short break, the project slows dramatically, and open PRs pile up.

...

• Identify areas where others can contribute, such as documentation, testing, website updates, or triage, to lower barriers to participation.
• Invite frequent contributors to take on small responsibilities, like summarizing votes or drafting reports.
• Use release and review rotations to build experience across multiple people.
• Mentors can highlight the ASF goal of “community over code”, long‘community over code’. Long-term health depends on shared responsibility, not individual productivitynot individual productivity.
• Identify areas where others can contribute, such as documentation, testing, website updates, or triage, and encourage participation in those areas to lower barriers to entry.

...

Scenario: The Employer-Dominated Podling

Most active committers on a podling are employed by the same company. Their employer provides infrastructure, funding, and time to work on the project, which has been essential to early success. However, external contributors have started begun to withdraw, saying they don’t feel their input is valued or that decisions are already being made internally.

Reflection questions

1. How can a podling strike a balance between valuable corporate support and the need for independent community governance?
2. What signs show that a project’s culture is vendor-dominated rather than community-driven?
3. How can mentors help the PPMC create more neutral ground for decision-making?

...

Scenario: Quiet Lists, Fading Energy

A once-active podling has gone grown quiet. Commits are infrequent, mailing-list traffic has dropped, and reports often arrive late. A few contributors say they’re busy with other projects, but no new participants are joining. Mentors worry the community may be losing momentum, but don’t want to overstep or discourage the team.

...

• Create a simple new contributor checklist: respond on-list to first-time posts, thank contributors acknowledge contributors by name, and link them to starter issues.
• Rotate “review buddy” duties so experienced committers respond quickly to new PRs.
• Include first-time contributors in release or report summaries to recognize their efforts publicly.
• Encourage mentors to model an inclusive tone , and brief, welcoming replies on the mailing list, and set setting stronger norms than formal rules.

...

Scenario: The Reluctant Leader

A podling enters incubation with an established codebase and a long-time maintainer who founded the project. The community appreciates their expertise and historical knowledge, but over time, most key decisions still depend on this individual’s approval. When others raise ideas or concerns, they often defer, saying, “Let’s wait for the founder’s input.” Mailing list discussions stall until that person responds. Mentors notice that votes are unanimous, but only after the founder states their opinion first. The pattern appears cooperative, but a genuine consensus never forms, the project still follows a single voice.

Reflection questions

1. Why can pre-existing leadership structures make it hard for a community to transition to ASF-style governance?
2. How can mentors and the PPMC encourage shared ownership without alienating the project’s original leaders?
3. What signals show that decision-making is still centered on an individual rather than the community?

...

• Acknowledge the founder’s experience and invite them to mentor others in shared decision-making.
• Encourage other contributors others to lead discussions and participate in discussions and votes so that authority becomes is more distributedevenly shared.
• Mentors can model consensus-building by asking open questions instead of deferring to one person’s view.
• If patterns persist, mentors and the PPMC should document them in reports and discuss ways to promote independence.
• Recognize that true graduation readiness means decisions can continue smoothly even if the founder steps back.

...

Scenario: Corporate Withdrawal and Loss of Momentum

In one podling, most development, reviews, and releases were done handled by employees of a single sponsorsponsoring company. When that sponsor changed priorities and reassigned staff, project activity quickly declined. Mailing list traffic slowed, releases stalled, and mentors raised concerns about the project's sustainability of the project.

Reflection questions

1. What signals indicate that a podling’s activity depends too heavily on one employer?
2. How can a podling spread knowledge of releases, infrastructure, and governance across multiple contributors?
3. What should mentors encourage before, during, and after a sponsor steps back?

Possible path forward

• Identify single-person or single-employer bottlenecks and rotate responsibilities (such as reviews, releases, and website updates )to spread knowledge and reduce risk.
• Invite frequent contributors to take on discrete tasks and document processes openly so new people can step in.
• Acknowledge the change in quarterly reports, outline mitigation steps, and track whether participation diversifies over time.

...

1. What signs show that a podling is genuinely ready to graduate?
2. Why can rushing graduation harm both the project and the Foundation?
3. How can mentors guide a conversation about readiness without discouraging enthusiasm?

Possible path forward

• Encourage the PPMC to perform a self-assessment using the Podling Maturity Model to evaluate readiness against ASF criteria.
• Celebrate progress but discuss what independence looks like in practice, regular votes, self-managed releases, and community-led reports.
• Frame graduation not as a deadline, but as the natural result of demonstrated maturity.
• Mentors can share examples of successful graduations where the community already operated as a PMC before the vote.

...

• Mentors can step back strategically, delaying responses to allow podling members to answer questions or call votes.
• Encourage rotation of report drafting and release management among PPMC members.
• Use mentoring moments opportunities to explain why a process existsASF processes exist, not just how to follow itthem.
• When the community can handle ASF processes without mentor intervention, graduation readiness is usually near.

...

1. What is the IPMC’s role in graduation decisions, and how can mentors assist the podling in navigating this process?
2. How can the community respond constructively to objections?
3. What can be learned from a delayed or re-voted graduation?

Possible path forward

• Discuss the concerns openly on the general@ general incubator list, asking for concrete specific reasons and suggestions for improvement.
• Treat the feedback as part of the learning process, not as rejection.
• Update the graduation resolution or reports to address any gaps, then resubmit when ready.
• Mentors can remind the community that graduation is confirmed by consensus, and sometimes consensus takes more than one vote.

...

A podling submits its graduation resolution after months of preparation and receives mostly positive feedback. Then, during the vote, an IPMC member raises a concern that catches the community off guard: it appears that a company involved in the project is misusing its brand. The podling feels frustrated. Why are , wondering why these issues are surfacing only now? Mentors . Mentors realize that although the podling had matured, a few key steps were assumed rather than verified.

...

• Treat surprises as learning opportunities rather than failures. Graduation readiness is about transparency, not perfection.
• Before submitting a resolution, review past reports, mentor sign-offs, and branding and license audits together as a final checklist.
• Encourage mentors to raise potential concerns early and publicly, not only during votes.
• If a new issue surfaces, pause the vote, address it collaboratively, and resubmit once consensus is rebuilt.
• Document lessons learned in the final graduation report to help future podlings avoid the same surprise.

...

A podling announces a release on social media as “ 1“1.0 is out!” The tweet omits “Apache” and “(incubating).” Shortly after, a mentor reminds the community that this could mislead users into thinking the project is already a full Apache TLP. Some contributors argue it’s “just marketing.”

...

• Acknowledge the error publicly and repost using the correct form: “Apache Foo (incubating) 1.0 released.”
• Update social-media bios, README files, and websites to use consistent ASF branding.
• Remind the community that proper name use consistent and accurate naming protects both the project project’s credibility and the ASF’s trademark integrity.
• Treat branding checks as part of the release verification and graduation readiness process.

...

• Pause the release vote and create a new release candidate with corrected headers.
• Verify that all any external code snippets are under compatible licenses and properly correctly attributed.
• Use Apache RAT , and add a simple “license-check” script or CI step to flag missing headers before tagging a release.
• Use the experience to strengthen awareness of ASF’s licensing and NOTICE requirements.

...

A podling launches a user survey to guide roadmap priorities. The form asks for names, email addresses, and company affiliations. A mentor asks whether this complies with ASF privacy policy. The team hadn’t considered that storing even temporary storage of this data , even temporarily, creates obligations for consent and retention.

Reflection questions

1. What personal data does the ASF consider sensitive, and why must it be handled carefully?
2. How can projects collect feedback responsibly while respecting ASF privacy expectations?
3. What should a podling do if it has already collected data without a clear consent statement?

Possible path forward

• Review the ASF Privacy Principles and remove or anonymize any stored personal data, collecting only what’s essential in future surveys.
• If feedback is needed, redesign the survey to avoid collecting identifiable information (, or make responses personal fields optional).
• Add a short privacy notice explaining how data will be used and for how long it will be retained.
• Share lessons learned on the dev@ list so everyone understands the ASF’s privacy culture.

...

1. Why does ASF branding and naming accuracy matter for project independence and public trust?
2. How can mentors and PPMC members respond when a company’s promotion blurs project governance or identity?
3. What practices help maintain a clear boundary between corporate marketing and ASF community communication?

Possible path forward

• Acknowledge the issue publicly and post a corrected statement that uses using the full project name: Apache Foo (incubating).
• Engage with the company privately and to explain why that accurate ASF branding and neutral representation are essential for community credibility.
• Review the project’s website, social media, and README to ensure consistent ASF-compliant naming and disclaimers.
• Encourage mentors to reinforce that the ASF owns all Apache brands and that corporate promotion should highlight participation, not control.

...

A project has recently graduated and is proud of its new PMC. Several mentors who had helped guided the podling during the incubation period were invited to stay involved, but after graduation, they quietly stepped away after graduation. Soon Soon, new committers join who have never interacted with any of the original mentors or learned from their context. The community worries about losing continuity and institutional memory.

...

A long-time committer who served as the first PMC chair decides to step down due to personal commitments. While the PMC supports the decision, no one feels confident taking over.
Some members suggest asking the former chair to continue “just for ‘just a bit longer.”’

The ASF Board liaison reminds them that the chair’s role is administrative, not one of authority, and that continuity depends on the PMC as a whole.

...

• Remind the community that the PMC, not the chair, governs the project. The chair simply reports Board status and maintains records.
• Encourage open nominations on the private@ list; any active PMC member can serve as chair.
• View chair rotation as routine administration, not a leadership crisis.
• Use this moment to refresh the PMC roster, documentation, and shared ownership of duties.
• The outgoing chair can assist with handover , but should allow the new chair to handle assume Board liaison responsibilities independently.

...

Scenario: The Dormant TLP

A project that graduated a year ago has become grown nearly inactive. No releases are happening, mailing list traffic is low, and reports to the Board are sporadic. A few remaining committers still care deeply, but they aren’t sure how to re-engage the wider community. They worry that the Board may view the project as dormant.

...

• Start an open discussion on the dev@ list about the podling’s status, goals, and possible next steps.
• If consensus forms around retirement, post the discussion summary and proposal to general@incubator for IPMC review and vote.
• Archive documentation, releases, and discussions so that future contributors can easily find rediscover and reuse the work.
• Frame retirement as a responsible conclusion, not a failure, it protects the ASF’s integrity and honors the volunteers’ efforts.
• If interest resurfaces later, a new proposal can always revive the project with a refreshed community.

...

A podling successfully graduates after two years of incubation. The community is proud and quickly moves on to new releases. However, the mentors realize that no one has documented what worked well, what didn’t, or what might could help the next generation of podlings. Other incubating projects face similar challenges but have to rediscover the same lessons.

...

• Periodically review ASF training decks, updated Incubator policies, and board meeting summaries.
• Participate in mentor discussions on general@incubator.
• Pair with newer mentors to exchange perspectives , experienceand experiences, and fresh eyes and seasoned insight complement each other.
• Treat mentoring as mutual learning: every podling teaches something new about The Apache Way.

...