incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <>
Subject Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Date Sat, 11 May 2013 14:26:23 GMT
Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the
board. There are several directors here including a couple on this
thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could
bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea
if this is something the board would entertain at all.

I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be
worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that
work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just "maybe
but we need more details", could help motivate getting that work done
and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded
interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few
others here who would too.

I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do
this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and
proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs
then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead.
And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than
the other big bang changes being proposed.

So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg
specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is
this something you could get us some feedback from the board about?


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
> I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no
> consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to
> the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable
> proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I
> plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making
> progress.
> 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. 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. I'm not going to
> bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my
> personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a
> good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed.
> 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.)
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder <> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson <> wrote:
> >> If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they
> >> you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests
> >> to see which way works best.
> >>
> >> Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some
> >> experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the
> >> experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some
> >> metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a
> >> while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that
> >> will inform a decision.
> >>
> >> Eric.
> >>
> >
> > +1 for experimenting with some new approaches.
> >
> > Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or
> > probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week
> > if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a
> > dozen existing poddlings to try it.
> >
> >    ...ant
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message