incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: Incubator report sign-off
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:27:45 GMT
As I've said repeatedly. This simply moves the problem it does not solve it. Today, a project
has mentors, usually it works, but sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't work someone needs
to fix it. That is the work that is being moved from the IPMC to the board by the pTLP proposal.

It's not necessarily a bad thing and may be acceptable to the board, but I don't understand
why proponents of this approach feel it is a solution rather than a moving of the problem.

Furthermore, I've not even started on who would own the documentation aspect (yes the proposal
is ComDev but just as last time this was circulated nobody has asked ComDev if they are willing
to take it on and nobody has turned up in ComDev to do the work.

This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <>
> But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those reviews, the IPMC

Agreed for the state of the things today. What is being proposed is that actions resulting
from those reviews are going to be pTLPs PMC responsibility. Since in the new world order
each pTLP PMC is guaranteed to have 3 ASF members and a chair (one of the 3) that is also
an ASF member, I don't think I can see how this would be disagreeable with the mechanics of
ASF board.


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

View raw message