incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: pTLP, concretely
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 16:24:52 GMT
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Benson Margulies <>
>>>> ...This scheme locates
>>>> that responsibility in the renamed committee, which serves the board
>>>> by supervising the pTLPs. They aren't mentors, they are PMC members...
>>> Ok, but the board needs to accept those folks, and the incoming pTLP
>>> needs to locate 4-5 such folks that the board will accept. I bet that
>>> would result in "smaller" potential projects just fading away, which
>>> goes against our inclusive principles.
>> I agree. It painfully obvious (to me) that we don't have enough
>> qualified mentors to handle all the small projects that want to show
>> up. In my view, any move in any direction has to confront this.
> This, imo, is the crux of the problem.  This proposal does not focus on this issue other
than to rename the roll.

Last comment from me for today:

to me, PMC membership, and especially PMC chairship, is a big deal. If
you accept it, you accept real responsibility, with real potential
legal consequences to the Foundation if you screw it up. There's
nothing like that about being a mentor. Legally, today, responsibility
for podlings sits with the IPMC chair and the IPMC members,
collectively, not with the particular mentors in particular of the
particular project,. So, again, to me, the pTLP scheme is very
different from the current scheme. It seems that other people don't
see this the same way that I do. If the general feeling is that PMC
membership is 'a joke' like mentorship is 'a joke', then this scheme
of mine is just more standup comedy.

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

View raw message