incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:34:37 GMT
A simple question for you all.

If the current amount of podlings (38):

[terra:~/tmp/podlings-content] mattmann% cat podlings.xml | grep current |
wc -l
[terra:~/tmp/podlings-content] mattmann%

Graduated over the next 3 months (~13 a month), or even the next 6 months
(which is
~6 near the current rate +/- a few), would the Board members suddenly
cease to function?

And then in that time, if we gain 1-2 new projects a month (probably
greater than
the average the past few years), would the Board again cease to function?

My proposal is to dissolve the self questioning, TL;DR, binding VOTEs and
west that is the Incubator PMC. The rest of the situation stays the same.
Keep the 
stinkin' documentation at, and folks can
to work/crank on it there if they desire. Why is a (meta)/umbrella
committee needed for this?

And stop identifying the Board as the folks who shoulder the load. The
(incoming and graduated) shoulder the load -- the Board only acts rarely,
when provoked. We also have committees for Legal and otherwise that can be
here as I have stated.

BTW, note the first step you all seem to agree on is also the first step
in my proposal,
that Greg and I proposed over a year ago.


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:18 PM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)

>Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
>egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
>is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
>the decision-making body for policy that controls those releases. The
>dilemma is that consensus doesn't always scale so well. Neither does
>supervision: when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.
>There are several directions to go to on this. Chris M's proposal
>dissolves the IPMC into many, small, egalitarian communities, and
>leaves overarching policy for the board and comdev, where it lives for
>all the other projects. Ross' proposal sacrifices some egalitarianism
>to achieve better scaling of both decision-making and supervision.
>Ross' other proposal :-), to move documentation (and thus some/much of
>the locus of policy decision) making to comdev, reduces the load of
>decision-making that the IPMC has to find consensus on, and thus
>proposes to reduce the stress.
>I sense that Chris M finds my writing on his proposal frustrating. To
>try to do a better job of explaining myself: Chris proposes that this
>committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
>large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
>from so far has been less than enthusiastic. It's one thing for this
>community to self-govern, but self-destruction strikes me as outside
>of the mandate. It just strikes me as sideways to seek consensus
>inside a community that the community is incapable of reliable
>reaching consensus, amongst other things. If I believed that the IPMC
>was unfixably nonfunctional in supervision or decision-making, I
>wouldn't be seeking a consensus. I'd be reporting my view to the
>board, making a recommendation, and asking for direction. That's how I
>see my duty as an officer. In other words, if there's something
>functional to be the chair of, my job is to be the chair of it. If
>there's nothing functional to be the chair of, it's my job to say so,
>recognizing that the board might just disagree.
>Now that we've cleared up some other matters, I'll try to help us all
>discover if we have a consensus on one of these proposals.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message