incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Cabrera <>
Subject Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Date Wed, 08 May 2013 06:31:08 GMT

On May 7, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Alan Cabrera <> wrote:
>> On May 7, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>>> On a whole different direction, one way to "scale" is to shift from
>>> Incubator-managed podlings to Board-managed. The podling would
>>> effectively be a "TLP on probation". The Champion, Mentors, and Board
>>> would be providing oversight.
>>> I would posit that the Board is more capable of oversight than the
>>> IPMC. The Directors have signed up to spend a lot of time -- more than
>>> we expect of most volunteers. Not to mention the Board reviews 50+
>>> reports every month. Another five won't kill the Board :-P
>>> Thus, I might suggest that a proposed-podling may want to try the
>>> above approach. (I dunno if the Board would agree, but somebody has to
>>> formally ask!)
>> This pre-supposes that the problem is the IPMC and not the mentors. If the board
members have the spare time to work on incubators then I recommend they come over to the IPMC
and help out.
> There is a difference in responsibilities. The Board would review, and
> would shut it down if it goes wrong. That is very different from
> stepping in to directly guide.

Sorry, I meant board members as individuals joining the IPMC.  You would be able to do the
same thing, no?

> If the probationary TLP is not functioning properly
> (mentors/champion/podling are not up to par), then it will get
> noticed. I think the IPMC doesn't really notice/correct for this, so
> yeah: that *is* my pre-supposition. I also think the Board is capable
> of doing this, rather than needing the IPMC layer between the podling
> and the Board.

Then the IPMC needs to be fixed.  Shuttling the kids off to the grandparents is not a solution.
 The IPMC needs to be fixed.

> I also feel reporting directly to the Board is necessary education.
> And part of the difference is that the Board reviews/discusses the
> reports. The IPMC does not have any discussion. The shepherds may set
> off some discussion, so they are a good way to try and get some
> IPMC-level review/discussion going.

You're describing an dysfunctional Incubator PMC.  Shepherds are a distraction from the fact
that mentors are not doing their jobs and the IPMC seems unwilling to hold them responsible.

> Note: this approach absolutely follows your basic point: Mentors need
> to step up and do what they volunteered for. There is nobody to fill
> in for their absence, other than the probationary TLP itself. The
> Board certainly will not be doing any hand-holding. (and they might be
> a bit more ruthless than the IPMC)

Because the mentors are not doing their jobs, the podlings, which are on probation projects
to begin with, are now to be probationary top level projects, under those very same absent
 mentors, under the auspices of the Board, while the IPMC does what?  Sorry, but that sounds
like double secret probation.  ;)

How long is the board going to do this?

This seems, to me, to be adding more obfuscation in an orthogonal direction to that of shuttling
responsibilities over to champions.  Both directions, imho, are distractions from the real
hard work ahead.

Just my 2 cents.  :)


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

View raw message