incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
Date Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:13:33 GMT
The IPMC has been incapable of any kind if action for a long time. Full
consensus is not possible, what is required is progress. The minority
position holders should step aside (assuming their objections are
unlikely to cause long lasting damage) or step up (assuming they have
an alternative proposal).

It certainly does no harm to review the thread and ensure nothing is
being missed. Assuming no long term damage is possible why not allow an
experiment to go ahead?

We have someone willing to step up into the role. Someone the
membership has trusted with a position on the board for many years. I
believe we can trust this individual as an ombud, which after all is a
position that carries no authority other than the respect of their
peers here in the IPMC.

I think we can trust this individual to define the role (under the
guidance of the IPMC) and, if the experiment should prove little
benefit I'm sure we can trust this individual to propose winding up the

It is time the IPMC were not crippled by its own membership. Lets give
Marvin a little space to review the thread and then lets move forward
as appropriate.

Sent from my Windows Phone From: Marvin Humphrey
Sent: 7/28/2013 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Alan Cabrera <> wrote:
> I was thinking that it might be a good idea to keep things simple and have
> Marvin simply appoint the Ombudsman for an indeterminate term.

While I am now inclined to support establishing an experimental ombud role
given Jim's participation, there have been several people in this thread who
have expressed skepticism, particularly about scope of responsibilities and
role redundancy.  The proposal as it stands does not have consensus.

Except in extraoardinary circumstances, the PMC chair doesn't have any greater
role in setting policy than any other PMC member, so I don't see what
justifies having me decide things.  Far from arbitrarily selecting winners and
losers, the chair is supposed to make sure all voices are heard.

I suggest reviewing the thread and drawing up a modified, more concrete
proposal which attempts to address the concerns that have been expressed.

I would also like to make one more suggestion: please consider preferring a
gender-neutral term such as "ombud" while maintaining the traditional term
"ombudsman" as an alias only for compatibility's sake.

    *This office uses all four terms —- ombud, ombuds, ombudsperson, and

We use "chair", not "chairman", after all.  The fact that the position is 95%
likely to go to someone male because the ASF gender imbalance is so horrible
merely underscores the urgency of improving our outreach.

Marvin Humphrey

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

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

View raw message