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 Wed, 08 May 2013 08:47:23 GMT
On 7 May 2013 21:15, 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!)

It doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that *occasionally* the
IPMC is accepting projects based on the good intentions of mentors who
subsequently are unable to fulfill their obligations.

I do agree that the board would notice such cases (as does the IPMC in
most cases). What would it do then? It would probably provide general
advice, possibly pointing to the IPMC or to ComDev and revisit in the
next report. If nothing improves then the board would likely shut down
the project. I agree with Greg that the board has the cycles to read
more reviews (hell, most of the directors, if not all, already read
all the podling reports), however, it doesn't have the cycles to fix
podlings that are having difficulties.

It also doesn't have the cycles to do IP review on releases as well as
the general guidance that happens here (which despite the frequent
flamewars about structure is often useful).

I don't see that changing from a podling to a probationary TLP makes
any difference to the problem Benson is trying to address. That said,
I don't think the current proposal of adding more checks and balances
makes any difference either.

The probationary PMC proposal of Chris' which Greg is championing
gives teeth to the whole process. That's what the IPMC needs - teeth.
But it also needs a mechanism for providing the support needed by some
projects (or it needs to stop accepting those projects in the first
place - they are usually fairly easy to spot). How often does the IPMC
reject a proposal?

I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained
support. In the absence of something else with teeth then I'm +1 for
probationary TLPs as proposed by Chris as long as we stop accepting
projects that are likely to run into problems according to our
collective experience.


> Cheers,
> -g
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Upayavira <> wrote:
>> The problem that most podlings I've been involved with, whilst having
>> six mentors, have ended up with just me playing any part. On paper, it
>> looks like these podlings are in a great place, in fact, they only have
>> a single active mentor.
>> What is wanted is to know who is, and who isn't active. To spot
>> problems. Benson's idea is to say that a simple 'I'm here' message would
>> really help the incubator PMC. I'd agree with that. The question is,
>> who's job is it to track all this. Should the PMC go look and do all the
>> leg-work, or should projects and their mentors take some of the load?
>> Really, the more responsibility is centralised, the less the incubator
>> will scale. Looking for ways that mentors can show their involvement is
>> a good thing. I guess that could be automated (grep through mail
>> archives for mentor email addresses each month), but until that happens,
>> I'd say it would be a good thing for mentors/champions to take some of
>> that load off the incubator PMC. It need merely be a reply to a Marvin
>> 'are you there' email.
>> Upayavira
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013, at 04:37 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Benson Margulies <>
>>> wrote:
>>> > There was a consensus to add the Champion role, and we haven't even
>>> > tried it seriously, and now you propose to eliminate it.  That doesn't
>>> > seem reasonable to me. I'd rather try to make it useful and then
>>> > evaluate it. In other words, +1 to Bertrand.
>>> >
>>> > 'Holding mentors to their responsibility' as a completely generic
>>> > concept is an idea that constantly fails to reach a consensus, due to
>>> > the 'volunteer dilemma'.
>>> >
>>> > For others in this thread, I completely disagree that a monthly one
>>> > line edit to the XML file or a one line email is an unreasonable
>>> > burden.
>>> Fair enough, disagree.
>>> > Any mentor, let alone champion, for whom that is an
>>> > unreasonable burden should not have signed up in the first place.
>>> That's unfair.  I signed up to *mentor* not send silly heartbeat
>>> checks that exist because other podling's mentors failed to live up to
>>> their responsibility.  This feels beyond the minimal governance
>>> necessary and a solution to the wrong problem.  It'd helpful to say
>>> precisely what problem that this heartbeat is intended to solve, in
>>> that way, we are afforded the opportunity to propose an alternative
>>> solution - for example, by focusing on highlighting the problem
>>> mentors/podlings.
>>> Thanks,
>>> --tim
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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:

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

View raw message