incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:50:14 GMT
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <> wrote:
>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
>> in 6 months (or sooner, if required?) IOW, we accept my proposal asi-is.
>> Then in 6 months, we'll see how it's working out, and I'll tell you what,
>> if we need an Incubation VP then, I'll be all for it, and even willing to sign
>> up for it.
> With my Director hat on, I would vote to keep the Incubator VP and
> only eliminate it when it is demonstrated to be of no value. As I
> mentioned before, I believe there are aspects to incubation that
> require a supportive group which cannot simply be shifted to the
> podling-TLP or the Board. The Board has enough to do without trying to
> *also* verify release processes, check on podling branding and press,
> etc.

With my Director's hat on, I certainly wouldn't dismiss the proposal
out of hand.

As Bill pointed out previously, the amount of lines in the monthly
board agendas won't materially change.  What I care most about is
addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
which feedback can be directed for each report.

Podlings typically have multiple ASF members assigned to them (three
is not an atypical number).  I believe that the responsibility for
verifying release processes, check on podling branding and press is
already assigned to these members.  If a podling (with the support of
the mentors) votes to assign a non ASF-member as the chair, I am OK
with that too as long as there are still plenty enough people
monitoring the development of the podling.

I'll name three concerns / items to be addressed:

First, having the board vote on the creation of each podling is a bit
too heavy weight.  I for one would prefer that that continue to be

Second, the board is not the appropriate vehicle for fine tuning /
micro-managing individual projects, much less podlings.  A podling
that consistently fails to report or fails to address issues
identified by the board should expect one or more of: a new chair,
people added or removed from the committee, of for the committee to be
dissolved entirely.  Having a supportive resource (whether that
resource goes by the name of 'incubator' or 'comdev', I care not)
remains important.

Third, we started to move towards a point where having commit access
to a podling means commit access to all the incubator.  The proposal
will need to cover how that is either going to change or how that
would be expected to work.

> Cheers,
> -g

- Sam Ruby

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message