incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:06:44 GMT
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
<> wrote:
> On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>> wrote:
>> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
> Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
> huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.

I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight. If
a podling required three Members to sign off, and the report required
your points... then we (the Board) might actually have better insight
than some TLPs.

The Board has 50+ reports to review each month. Thankfully, there
hasn't been much push back on that yet. We seem to be keeping up (the
shepherd/comment system helps us). Throwing in some podlings shouldn't
upset us, as it actually drops the [giant] Incubator report down to
(maybe?) empty.

>> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
>> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
> I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
> active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
> should be expected to by me or by anyone else.

If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we
*should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more
attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and
approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to
delegate/slack a little bit on those reports.

Point is: the Incubator is not the only solution here. Think about
other options. Maybe the Board can accept the podling, and designate
some pseudo-VPs to be held responsible?

>> I know other directors (Greg IIRC at least) didn't want the Incubator
>> specific podling reports to go away (and to only have the summary
>> at the top of the Incubator report).
> I don't think any of the Directors want them to go away. But board reports
> are not what the IPMC is about. That is the reporting process within the
> foundation and provides the level of oversight into the PPMCs that the
> board requires. But the IPMC does *much* more than submit a monthly board
> report with a verbatim copy of the podlings individual reports.

Agreed! And this is a very important point that seems to be left behind a bit.

I would counter that the IPMC doesn't tend to satisfy this
oversight/educational role consistently well. In the end, it simply
depends upon the Mentors' attention. There are very few (none?)
solutions to that basic problem.



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

View raw message