incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin A. McGrail" <kmcgr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A smaller IPMC
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2019 01:15:11 GMT
I am not aware of the problem we are trying to fix.  I don't even know if I
am a mentor not subscribed to private@.

Without knowing what we are trying to solve, it is hard to weigh in on
fixes.

So my ask is what is the issue?

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 19:25 Liang Chen <chenliang6136@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi
>
> One more suggestion: How about maintaining one table, and ask IPMC to
> freely
> provide info by them-self which part they are mentoring or will be going to
> mentor as volunteer.
> For example myself : Helping new project (DataSketches)  to prepare
> incubator proposal. and participate in some vote for new releases and new
> projects.
>
> Regards
> Liang
>
>
> Ted Dunning wrote
> > I don't think that the number of inactive IPMC members is a factor in
> > anything. They are, by definition, inactive.
> >
> > So I would vote for the no-op action (#4, I think).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:39 PM Roman Shaposhnik &lt;
>
> > roman@
>
> > &gt;
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean &lt;
>
> > justin@
>
> > &gt;
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> Personally, I believe that "IPMC is too large" argument is only
> >> applicable
> >> to
> >> how quickly/easily consensus can be built. That's literally the only
> >> situation
> >> when the size of IPMC gets in the way (sometimes).
> >>
> >> Is anyone aware of any other situations where "IPMC is too large"
> >> argument
> >> is actually legit?
> >>
> >> At any rate, the rest of my feedback will be from that single
> >> perspective:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> I would like to suggest a 5th alternative (again this is from the
> >> above's perspective):
> >>    * Don't change anything, but for any situation that requires
> >> consensus building just be a tad more formal with how we close loops
> >> and track if we really get as many obstructionists as we thing that
> >> the size of the IPMC allows. If not -- we don't have a problem.
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> I honestly don't see how all of these options of getting people in and
> >> out of IPMC can actually help with this consensus building thing. So
> >> yeah -- I'd say #5.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>
> > general-unsubscribe@.apache
>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
> > general-help@.apache
>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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