incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))
Date Sun, 03 Mar 2019 08:12:40 GMT
As a peanut, IMO, it could be that the root problem is that the drive-by folks are discussing
topics that are too subjective at a critical time (to get a release out), not the number of
folks who can drive-by.  I'm not even in the IPMC, and I can still follow general@ and offer
opinions.

Podlings would have their lives improved if there were more folks available to help in little
increments if the help was consistent.  It would be a stronger community if more people could
help pound a nail or fix a flat tire.  It would take the load off the folks in charge.  More
people would get more done with less burnout.

In some ways, Roy's suggestion to stop having an IPMC vote as a gate for a podling release
can help by making it less critical to get someone official to rule on something "now".  Just
ship it, note it in the bug tracker, and get to it when you can find someone to help you or
take your time resolving it, gathering different opinions and coming up with a solution, even
a temporary one.  Not all issues need to be addressed before graduation, IMO.  Some issues
just aren't stop-ship and won't ruin the legal shield or put the ASF in legal jeopardy.  Policy
issues are not always legal issues.  In fact, I think most aren't.

Maybe we should try to reduce subjectivity by getting more consensus on what issues are really
important and which ones aren't.  That might get more consistency from the drive-bys.  But
some of these issues are judgement calls and folks will have different opinions and podlings
might be better served by being advised to get second opinions.

Reducing the number of volunteers and holding them to a higher standard seems anti-volunteer.
 It is why I've never asked to join the IPMC.   I can pound a nail and fix a flat tire, though.
 Finding ways to reduce the size of the tasks and requirements on the timing seems like it
would attract more volunteers and be more helpful.  Instead of having to review an entire
release in order to cast a binding vote on it, maybe I could spend 5 minutes to just run RAT
on it and if it finds a binary, open a ticket asking why.

HTH,
-Alex

´╗┐On 3/2/19, 3:55 AM, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
    
    > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
    > > > wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Hi,
    > > > >
    > > > > > I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big
    > problem
    > > > either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again
    > later
    > > > if a community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave
    > and
    > > > then join again.
    > > > >
    > > > > Some context, over 300 projects have gone through the incubator, 50
    > are
    > > > there currently, each requires a champion and 3 mentors at the start
    > (all
    > > > IPMC members), even with some mentors working on multiple podling it's
    > not
    > > > surprising the IPMC is 300 people or so. Nor should it be that a large
    > > > number of them are inactive as most of the projects they were involved
    > in
    > > > have graduated (or retired).
    > > >
    > > > +1
    > > >
    > > > > But despite this some still think it is an issue so we IMO we should
    > > > address it, unless they change their minds, and say so here.
    > > >
    > > > Personally, I don't think that is a reason to reduce the IPMC count.
    > > > I think it needs to be established WHY it is thought to be an issue
    > first.
    > > >
    > >
    > > It encourages drive-by bikeshedding. "I'm an IPMC Member from a few years
    > > back. I see $foo, and OMG need to comment on it."
    > >
    > > Did anybody stop and read the concerns recently raised to the Board? Much
    > > of the focus on that email was about such drive-by commenting.
    > >
    > > Thus, reduce the opportunity for drive-by.
    >
    > Since the general@ list is public, I don't think reducing the IPMC
    > will stop comments.
    >
    
    So? It is to reduce the number of people who feel empowered to meddle into
    everything every podling does. You want to fix general@ ??, then go ahead.
    I want to see people who choose not to *participate* in the IPMC [by
    subscribing to private@] dropped from the roster. The whole world can chat
    on general@. But if you want to be *part* of the IPMC, and want a binding
    vote, and want to really throw-in on Incubator matters, then you damned
    well better subscribe.
    
    The basic structure of 200+ people all having "merit" to jump into a
    podling's pond is a priori broken. We have *specific* feedback that this is
    true. Not a guess. Not some survey. A "letter" signed by numerous
    individuals that this is the case. So until the Incubator decides its basic
    structure is Wrong(tm), and stops pushing back against that feedback, then
    what is a simple reversible change to try and disempower the knuckleheads
    who want to throw in, on the good work done by our podlings? ... Right.
    Trim the IPMC.
    
    -g
    

Mime
View raw message