incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bertrand Delacretaz <>
Subject Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:30:48 GMT
Hi Chris,

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
<> wrote:
> ... ...

Thanks for this, this looks like a good definition of "the experiment".

> ...1. the documentation on *what* to do for incoming projects is
> already there and in good shape....

I disagree, to me needs a lot of work -
it is way too verbose in many places for example, and mixes up best
practices with policy. I don't see how shifting the responsibility to
comdev would help.

> ...2. the process on *what* to do for incoming projects is already
> there and in good shape. Nothing prevents folks from continuing
> to work on it, even without an “IPMC”...

Ok but define "folks".

Currently it's the active members of the IPMC, and IIUC your plan is
to move this responsibility to the board, which is busy enough IMO.

> ...3. the main issue that keeps arising, related to mentoring, will keep
> arising if we keep growing this ethereal presence that’s the
> “IPMC”...

Removing inactive IPMC members is easy, like that's done for other PMCs.

> ...In addition all of those new great folks we are now unlike before
> adding to the IPMC can simply be part of e.g., ComDev, as folks
> who “get” the foundation, or simply be strong ASF members, etc.,...

Makes me think that the goal is to end up with comdev being the
"folks" that you mention above.
Adjusting the IPMC membership to people who are actually active would
have the exact same effect then.

> ...Yes there was a time that the Incubator didn’t exist, and *gasp*
> the foundation still ran fine....

We didn't have 30-50 podlings and about 200 TLPs at the time.

Some easy podlings need very little work, while troublesome ones might
need lots of attention and time.

> ...It seems to me there are always a set of folks that think the
> Incubator PMC needs to exist in order for the documentation,
> the process, and the *care* from the people who care about the
> things related to release management; legal help; community help,
> etc., to exist. To me, that’s ridiculous...

Well, someone needs to do the work of maintaining for example.

Moving that responsibility to the board sounds like a huge waste of
those people's time - the board is all about delegation and that's a
good thing.

> ...And finally, I guess for those folks who think that PMCs should
> always be around...

Who are those folks exactly?
Not me - I think the IPMC should stay around, that's it. Generalizing
this into and "old farts never change their minds" discussion is not

I'm not against an experiment with 1-2 podlings based on if
people want that but I'm very skeptical of that as a general way of
managing incoming projects. If those 1-2 podlings happen to be "easy"
ones that will work of course, but with troublesome podlings that
sounds to me like a huge waste of the board's energy.


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

View raw message