incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
Date Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:48:35 GMT
+1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least.
No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion).

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: Joseph Schaefer <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:52 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

>This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical
>counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide
>Sent from my iPhone
>On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler <>
>> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
>> On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, "Alan Cabrera" <> wrote:
>>> Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
>>> Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner
>> and sometimes mentors are the problem.
>>> Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman.
>> From now on I'm only going to look at solutions in the context of the
>> issues on the wiki page. If a proposal doesn't apply to one or more
>> I'm not interested.
>> In this case...
>> The only problem that would need an ombudsmen is ISSUE 01 (inactive
>> mentors). Mentors should always know where to go to solve a problem (we
>> have specialist committees for pretty much every issue that will
>>arise). If
>> mentors are inactive then ISSUE 01 is in play.
>> The current place to go is the IPMC. At this point ISSUE 03 may well
>> into play.
>> The idea of an Ombudsman overlaps with my earlier proposal for a
>> psuedo-board in the IPMC. Its also similar to both suggested solutions
>> ISSUE 03 in the wiki.
>> For these reasons I suggest the Ombudsmen proposal has merit.
>> I also suggest that this ombudsmen could be the organisation responsible
>> for acting if a podling (or a pTLP, if the experiment shows merit in
>> model) is failing.
>> As always the details needs to be ironed out but since the proposal
>> directly addresses ISSUE 03 I would like to see it explored. I
>> like that it complements my pTLP experiment which is designed to address
>> ISSUE 01 (but clearly your proposal is worth exploring even without that
>> potential advantage).
>> Ross
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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