incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:40:05 GMT

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a PPMC
to have binding votes.
> I don't see a reasonable alternative structure.  Feel free to propose one.

I thought I did.  The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings formal PMCs that
report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on releases, add new committers,
etc..  My proposal is to give podlings the authority to make the releases and add new committers
as long as they have approval of their mentors. It doesn't require a change in bylaws or even,
so far as I can tell, explicit board approval to do this. It might require someone to change
the voting page to clarify that the incubator works differently. Big deal.

> I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases.  That
> would /still/ mean having the board acknowledge those who are doing the
> voting, or making a rather complex structure of the board conveying the
> responsibility for granting code review/approval karma to another body.

Please point me to anything that says the board has to be involved in any of that.  

> It all falls back on the board.  Right now, we are running two boards,
> one over incubating efforts and one over 'mature' projects; one is
> empowering projects and the other emasculating them.  This is really
> quite silly and seems we aught to quit it already.

Everything falls back on the board. But the board delegates. The IPMC has the authority to
delegate, but only what the board has given it ownership of.  If desired, the IPMC can propose
a resolution to the board to seek explicit approval for the delegation, but I'm not sure even
that is required.

> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though.  Incubator is very
> tedious.  Very little is resolved.  Deck chairs are shuffled.  But at
> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
> micro-managers do, we aren't necessarily creating better projects than
> Chris's proposed structure, and the entire process and participation is
> simply not enjoyable (except to the sadists or masochists).

As Ross said, while the proposal gets rid of the tediousness it also removes much of the oversight
and practically all of the help and support.  


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

View raw message