incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Date Sat, 11 May 2013 19:26:28 GMT
Alan keeps asking that we isolate the problems that need solving.
Sounds sensible. For me the IPMC usually works just fine. Occasionally
there is a failure in mentoring and occasionally the IPMC fails to pick
this up and address it.

In addition, sometimes the IPMC is an inefficient vehicle for helping
podlings that are having some form of difficulty.

Whilst we do need to solve these problems, it is my opinion that these
occasional failures are being blown out of all proportion. We are
losing sight of the fact that more often than not our mentors do a
great job.


Sent from my Windows Phone From: Alan Cabrera
Sent: 11/05/2013 17:46
Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC

On May 11, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:

> A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the
> entire process of a new project launching with  _no IPMC_ to
> participate in any way.

Can you explain what problem launching new projects with _no IPMC_ to
participate in any way solves?  Maybe this is where the disconnect is.
 Is the IPMC the problem or is it the lack of mentors the problem?

What are the core problems that you are trying to solve?

> Taking a proposal that has been groomed and
> vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the
> board is purely an experiment in board supervision.

Can you explain what is it about the board that's better than having
the board members with the spare bandwidth coming over to the IPMC to
help?  What is it about the auspices of the board that improves
things?  What is the exact problem that this solves?

> My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project',
> it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently
> constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and
> can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider.
> The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It
> could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to
> survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney
> VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is
> desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.)

That depends on what the problem is.  If the IPMC is paralyzed then
yes, the board should step in.  I didn't realize that we're there
already.  If we are then please be explicit about it.

But I don't understand why we can't go through the simple exercise
that I propose to see where we have points in common.  I think that
doing so will go a long way to generating good will, as people's
positions will be analyzed down to their core, and provide better
transparency as to what people's motivations are.

I'm saying this because I really don't understand why people are
espousing these various solutions.  I want to understand but at the
moment it just seems that people are holding on to their positions
without explaining their thoughts down to the core problems that they
think they are trying to solve.

In the end, I think if we're really serous about this we'll end up
with bits of everyone's proposals.


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

View raw message