incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A smaller IPMC
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2019 06:23:07 GMT
As framed herein, #4 for sure. (But, that doesn't necessarily exclude
support for various ideas that rework how IPMC operates, and where reducing
the size may be a small part of something larger and intentional.)

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:13 PM Ross Gardler <rgardler@outlook.com> wrote:

> I think this thread misses the point of the original observation.
>
> Firstly, I've not seen anyone suggest that removing inactive IPMC members
> will make any difference. What I've seen is a suggestion that active IPMC
> members on general@ should be expected to be on the private list.
>
> While there aren't many conversations over there. When there is one it is
> important.
>
> Secondly, I think the framing of #4 (which I agree with in the context of
> this thread, given the above observation) incorrectly identifies the "real"
> problem. While inactive mentors a problem for individual podlings I don't
> believe they are the cause of the inteference the IPMC can display when it
> comes to things like podling releases.
>
> In other words I consider this whole thread a distraction.
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kenneth Knowles <kenn@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:49:29 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: A smaller IPMC
>
> +1 for #4 noop, at least until there's evidence of a problem.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:27 PM Woonsan Ko <woonsan@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 PM Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It’s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC
> > members think might be a way to address this?
> > >
> > > Please discuss and indicate +1 what you would think would help, you can
> > vote for more than one.
> > >
> > > Some suggestions:
> > > 1. Ask all inactive IPMC if they want to continue being on the IPMC and
> > see who steps down. Being inactive they are probably not following this
> > list so we need to identify and send each one email them personally.
> > > 2. There were some questions around merit raised, remove all IPMC
> > members who were not on the initial proposal and who were voted in. Those
> > left on the IPMC vote back in those who are currently active.
> > > 3. Get rid of all IPMC members, and vote (with ASF members vote being
> > binding - not sure how else it could be done?) currently active ones back
> > in.
> > > 4. Do nothing as this is not actually a problem but instead address
> > other underlying issues. e.g. lack of mentor engagement.
> >
> > +1 to my modified version from #2 (and 0 to the others as I don't
> > think they will help a lot):
> > "Remove all IPMC members who were not on the initial proposal and who
> > were voted in. Those left on the IPMC vote for those, as members, who
> > can recruit, guide mentors, and review podling graduations, and they
> > also vote for those, as mentors (committers), who have ever been
> > active mentors for podlings."
> >
> > Mentors are committers: if someone starts contributing in this
> > community, they are to be recognized and invited to a mentor
> > (committer) in this project; if they contribute more for the community
> > consistently, they are to be invited to a IPMC member. In smaller
> > IPMC, IPMC members focus more on helping/guiding mentors and reviewing
> > graduations in various aspects, and mentors focus more on detail
> > issues in podlings, providing enough overview and information to IPMC.
> > I think this will make it a fairer merit-earning game, to new comers
> > getting helps from mentors and (graduation and/or high-level) reviews
> > from members, watchers considering to help, mentors eager to help
> > graduations, more focused members, ...
> >
> > >
> > > Also re point 2 do you think we should drop that ASF members can
> > automatically get IPMC membership and change it to requiring a vote by
> the
> > IPMC? It’s has always seem odd to me that this is the case. We’ve
> recently
> > voted more people in that we’ve had requests from ASF members.
> >
> > +1 to always be voting, whether they are ASF members or not, like other
> > PMCs.
> >
> > >
> > > Any other sugestions?
> > >
> > > Options 2 and 3 may cause some issues around mentors, but if they were
> > not active then I guess it’s no big loss.
> >
> > My modified version includes all active people as mentors (committers)
> > at least, so there's no loss as well.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Woonsan
> >
> > >
> > > And any suggestions on level of activity? Such as:
> > > - Emailed the list in the last year.
> > > - Reviewed at least one release in that time.
> > >
> > > It’s already been determined that some (about 15%) of the less than
> > active PMC members (out of the 100 odd that are not signed up to the IPMC
> > private list) do help out infrequently but that help is very useful. That
> > may also apply to other inactive IPMC members, so I would suggest the bar
> > for what consider active be kept low.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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