incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Weise <...@apache.org>
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 19:26:41 GMT
Currently mentors need to be IPMC members. Is that really necessary?
Alternatively mentors could be given all required powers through the PPMC
membership and the IPMC could be more focused on long term direction and
improving the incubator as a whole. IPMC already votes on incubator
proposals and nominated mentors. IPMC could take more of an observer role
and only intervene when there is clearly something wrong with a podling
(similar how the board would with a TLP). Podling reports and graduation
proposal provide the opportunity to catch everything that mentors might
have missed.

Mentors that are active over a long time and show interest in the overall
direction of the incubator, could become IPMC candidates. That would be
similar to how TLPs consider PMC membership.

Thomas

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:13 AM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message