incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 18:57:41 GMT
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

> I really don't have a problem with a report like that going out as long as
> somebody can answer it.  I answered it.  Dave paid attention.  The group
> gained more knowledge about which aspects of a release are important to
> Apache.  It was a very good thing, all in all.

But did that communication have to be *in the report*?  I guarantee that other
inaccurate shepherd reviews have slipped into the permanent record -- and
that useful feedback has been self-censored by shepherds because that's the
channel they are instructed to use.

Why not just reply to the draft report that gets sent to general@incubator
each month instead?

> My first reaction is that we need to make shepherding have higher rewards.

Higher rewards, eh?  I imagine reviewers would value having their feedback
spawn give-and-take -- which would happen in email, but not so much via the
report wiki.

But really, the elephant in the room is cost.  Why must proactive community
assessment be a prerequisite to cross-cutting feedback?  If the Incubator
didn't insist on that, there would be more and richer critiques.  There is
*plenty* of information in podling reports to initiate cross-community
conversations.  A reactive workflow suffices.

>> Maybe the time will come to revisit this issue if shepherd participation
>> flatlines, though that's not a very satisfying outcome...
>
> Seems important enough to think about now.

Time is on the side of those who think shepherd institution should die.  It
would be better if it died quickly, vacating the report review mindspace and
making way for Mentor commentary supplemented by reactive IPMC report
feedback.  Mentors on the ground *are* the Incubator's analogue to Board
shepherds -- the extra layer is unnecessary and costs too much.  It is harmful
that shepherd reviews are "the way it's done".

Marvin Humphrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message