incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
Date Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:15:44 GMT
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:39 AM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Chris Douglas <> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> How is that different from pruning the current IPMC membership by
>>>>> removing inactive members?
>>>> Doing *that* would be straightforward. Take the set of mentors on currently
>>>> incubating projects, add the other half dozen who review releases, and set
>>>> everyone else to voluntary emeritus status. Done....
>>> Agreed - but I don't see how that improves things anyway, I don't see
>>> any problem caused by those inactive members.
>> The near-ad-hominem tone of this thread has extracted a reply in my own defense.
>> It is a misunderstanding, verging on willful, to claim that the V2
>> proposal is primarily intended to remove either inactive or noisy
>> persons from the group. it is a fabrication that there is any idea
>> that some person other than the board  might select an initial set of
>> people to further some particular agenda. The idea here of the small
>> group, extracted from something Ross wrote on the Wiki in 2013, is
>> that an incubator committee doesn't need to be big and it doesn't need
>> to grow via merit, if its only job is to accept the board's delegation
>> of a limited set of supervisory tasks. If you make a smaller group, it
>> might still contain vigorous disagreement, but on a scale where they
>> can manageably reach consensus. It would think less of the board if
>> they failed to select people likely to have some significant
>> disagreements.
> I resent your and Chris’ characterization of this thread.  All that’s been taking
place is a frank and civil discussion of opinions as to what the implication of some proposals
mean.  Your, and Chris’, attempt to characterize them as taking on an ad-hominem tone suggest
to me that we are poking at the Achilles heal of the Iv2 proposal and Chris’ impromptu proposal
to fork the Incubator.

Since it is the tone of Chris' messages that I am predominantly
objecting to, I am nonplussed. Since the purpose of V2 was to
highlight my perception of the Achilles heel of pTLP, or alternatively
to try to build the rest of the structure it required, I am bemused to
see you looking for a heel of a heel.

Would it help if I deleted the silly thing? No one seems to like it,
and it is failing as a tool to focus discussion on my perceptions of
the missing parts of the pTLP idea. No one seems to express any
affirmative interest. All it seems to do is provoke ventilation. It is
certainly true that you and I have very different views of the
essential character of the some of the issues, but I see no value to
this discussion, the incubator, or the asf in trying any further to
bridge the gap.

I, personally, would be happy to see effort put into Marvin's
documentation project first and foremost, and any discussion about
radical or structural changes to incubation deferred until we see the
impact of that project. I, personally, would be happy to see the Board
establish an 'unincubated' project now and again when there is a
nuclear group of people qualified to run it without IPMC supervision.
I, personally, prefer that the legal structure of a thing like an
incubator match the function, but I accept that I'm apparently unique.

But I have a very hard time typing nothing when there are people
repeatedly accusing me, personally, of conspiratorial intentions. You
and other, feel that the effect of V2 would be to exclude. Fine.
That's a great reason to oppose it. (And also the change to
ApacheCon.) But I perceive trolling, or worse, when people choose to
oppose it by claiming that I drafted it with the intention of taking
control by stuffing a committee with my co-thinkers. That's the plain
sense of what Chris wrote, and I don't like it.

> At the heart of both there is a culling of IPMC members.  Sure, the new IPMC may have
"Oscar Madison” and “Felix Ungar” tossed into the same bag but that’s a distraction
from the real problem that I, and maybe Bertrand, are trying to point out.
> At the proposals' core is that there are IPMC members who want to participate but would
be left out and in the end the “problems” with the Incubator would not be resolved since,
as Chris accurately puts it, we will have distilled dysfunction.
> But is it dysfunctional?  Only when it tries to be like a school of business and come
up with new and improved processes for bringing in new projects instead of focusing on the
core problems which don’t go away, tooling and mentor accountability.  Otherwise, I think
we do a pretty good job.  We make mistakes, sure, but mistakes will always be made and I think
we’ve made good, focused, incremental pivots to address their causes.
> Regards,
> Alan

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

View raw message