incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: should podlings have informal chairs?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:54:42 GMT
I see what I did wrong.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:36 PM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 22 November 2011 00:42, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies <>
>>>> Sam,
>>>> Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
>>>> diffuse as to be directionless?
>>> I don't see that as a necessary consequence.  The ASF is large and
>>> diffuse, yet each month we pretty consistently get 6+ Directors to
>>> review and sign off on each report.  The board is careful to not set
>>> technical direction, but we do create and track action items, and work
>>> to make sure that the individual PMCs are self-governing and get the
>>> help that they need from the relevant board committees.
>> Compare, if you would, the board of six to the ipmc. There aren't six,
>> or sixteen, ipmc members who feel it's their job to review every PPMC
>> report before the whole business goes to the board. There's a chair,
>> who due to his volunteer status like the rest of us, shows more or
>> less engagement with the goings-on on this mailing list at different
>> times.
>> The ipmc more or less delegates to the mentors, and passes the PPMC
>> reports up to the board, with not much digestive activity in between.
>> In this sense I guess I'm trying to agree with you, but I wonder how
>> to get a giant committee of people, most of whom signed up just to
>> mentor one project, to actually step up and exercise more oversight.
>> Of course we've got a few people like Sebb who try to stay on top of
>> everything.
>> Since there are only six board members, they all know that they,
>> themselves, have to read this stuff and think about it. If there were
>> 106, I doubt that anything would get attended to unless a subset were
>> somehow tasked. So I suppose that I'm trying to float the idea that,
>> somehow, less than the full ipmc needs to focus. I suppose that the
>> committee could create a category of meta-mentor, and people who sign
>> up for that role would be signing up to read all the reports and
>> perhaps even look over the shoulders a bit of the projects.
>> Should I believe
>> that
>> there are 878 ipmc members, or is this some sort of ldap artifact?
> I count 154, which agrees with the number of entries in committee-info.txt.
> I don't know where your figure of 878 comes from.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message