incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Date Fri, 10 May 2013 16:25:17 GMT
So, here we have:

Alan's idea of removing champions and shepherds and demanding mentor
recommitment, with the 'teeth' of putting podlings on ice if they
can't muster an adequate mentor squad.

My idea of asking champions to step up to some specific supervision
responsibility, thus allowing some flexibility for some mentors to be
more 'supervisory' than others.

Ross' ideas about shepherds,

Chris' proposal to push the self-destruct button.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a decision procedure?  I don't see,
or foresee, a consensus for any of these.

My draft board report says that if we don't find a way forward in time
for the June board meeting, I propose to discuss the situation with
the board.

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 8 May 2013 02:20, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler
>> <> wrote:
>> > ...I've made a proposal for giving the IPMC teeth but it hasn't gained
>> > support..
>> URL?
> Sorry, working from mobile device while travelling. I proposed creating a
> board like structure and formalising shepherd role. Very similar to Chris'
> proposal but leaving overhead with IPMC rather than moving to board.
>> > ...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....
>> If you're able to find out that a podling will cause problems in the
>> future, or that its mentors will become inactive, maybe I should hire
>> you for this lottery betting club ;-)
> Hehe - fair comment. I was thinking, for example, of BlueSky - the archives
> show my concern that was ignored and ultimately shown to be right. A
> counter example is OpenMeetings who addressed my concerns, came back and
> graduated quickly and smoothly. I'm not suggesting its always possible to
> get it right, but I do think we can be more rigorous in general.
>> Apart from that I agree that the board doesn't have cycles to handle
>> problematic podlings or missing mentors, and as a result whatever
>> actions it would take would be much harsher than what we do here.
> That's the more important point.
> Ross
>> -Bertrand
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message