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 Sat, 11 May 2013 17:01:38 GMT

On May 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:

> Violating my 24 hour rule just this one, and worse yet to repeat myself:

IMO, I think this is fine so long as it occurs on the weekend.  :)

> +1 Joe, Ross, etc.
> I rather regret mentioning the direct launch alternative in my most
> recent email. We have some weakness in _mentoring_,


> and more weakness
> in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision).

Could tooling help here?

> We have a
> few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially
> supervision weakness.

Is the reporting problem the sole issue?

> I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that
> just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed
> to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go.

I'm not sure which way to go but I'm really liking the direction of this email.  I feel that
I'm getting a sense of what you feel are the core problems we're trying to solve.

> Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a
> consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to
> allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the
> choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors.

I think that a lot of members didn't read it, thinking that there was yet another email storm
to ignore.

This was the point that I was trying to make in my earlier emails.  *It is the constant churning
of roles and processes that is exhausting this IPMC, not the actual work.*  It is this bureaucratic
churning that's sapping the emotional energy if the IPMC members.

Why are we "churning"?  Because we are not holding members/mentors up to their commitments.
 Because we are constantly coming up w/ new ad hoc exceptions for every policy we have.

We need less process.  Less roles.  More accountability.  More tooling.

> One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to
> let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before
> I remotely consider taking that step.

Ultimately we voted you in to be our VP.  I feel that you are listening to our concerns. 
I'll support what ever your decision is even if I don't agree. 

> I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in
> the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative
> should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message.

What this "direct to PMC" model?


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

View raw message