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 Sat, 02 Mar 2019 10:48:59 GMT
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.

Please stop making excuses to keep the status quo. That is pretty much
everything that I've seen since that email.

-g

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