incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
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 08:11:48 GMT
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?
>

Nope. I don't interact/meddle with podlings, but stick to meta/process
issues within the Incubator.

Somewhat recently, I worked with Fineract and Mynewt as a Mentor, but have
not volunteered for mentoring since their graduations (my
non-work/volunteer time goes to supplement my work time in Infra).

Certainly, I grant you that I may have written a poor email, that
randomized a podling. I've tried to avoid such podling-specific emails, but
may have missed. If something sticks out, then I'd like to hear, so I can
fix going forward.

I've been subscribed to private@ since it was created in October 2002. Ken
Coar was the first subscribed to the list, and I got subscribed about 5
minutes later. My concern is about those who use their IPMC membership for
the drive-bys (the issue that instigated this discussion), yet they aren't
subscribed and *participating* as an IPMC Member for its entire host of
activities and responsibilities for guiding new communities into the ASF.
Maybe that intersection is zero, but I still see no reason to keep people
on the IPMC if they won't subscribe to private@

Cheers,
-g

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 1:42 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 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