incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:20:52 GMT
I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded. That
is why the IPMC submits a board report.

That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all this up
again. For now lets agree to differ.


On 28 March 2013 16:19, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <> wrote:

> Hey Ross,
> >> >I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
> >legally
> >> >responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
> >>it
> >> >with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
> >>
> >> Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
> >> Incubator
> >> deconstruction proposal [1]. In fact, it does not make the board legally
> >> responsible
> >> in any different way than the board is currently responsible for its
> >> plethora of
> >> TLPs -- IOW, it doesn't change a thing. It basically suggests that
> >> incoming projects
> >> can simply fast track to (t)LPs from the get go, so long as they have
> >>>= 3
> >> ASF members
> >> present to help execute and manage the Incubator "process" which still
> >> exists in
> >> my proposed deconstruction.
> >
> >My point is that all the oversight currently provided by the IPMC would
> >have to be provided by the board. We already know that having three
> >mentors
> >does not guarantee adequate support for podlings.
> I guess I would ask "what oversight"? There is no global IPMC oversight.
> Ever since Joe's experiment, and even before, the podlings that get through
> the Incubator (and I've taken quite a few now, and recently, so I think I
> can speak from a position of experience here within the last few years),
> are the ones that have active mentors and *distributed*, not *centralized*
> oversight.
> IOW, I'm not seeing any IPMC oversight at the moment. I'm seeing good
> mentors,
> located in each podling, distributed, that get podlings through. Those that
> stall well they need help. Usually the help is debated endlessly, and not
> solved,
> or simply solved with more active/better mentors.
> So, that's my whole point. You either agree with me that there is no IPMC
> oversight at the moment (for years now), and that really podlings are TLPs
> (well the ones that graduate within a fixed set of time as Sam was trying
> to measure
> before, or simply point out that is) or you still believe that there is
> oversight
> within the IPMC. I personally don't. That's why I wrote the proposal. And
> I think
> that's at least evident to me and more than a few others that that's the
> problem here
> and that's why I don't think the Incubator should exist anymore in its
> current form
> and should be deconstructed :)
> Thanks for your comments and conversation and for listening.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email:
> WWW:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)

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