incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <>
Subject Re: A smaller IPMC
Date Thu, 07 Mar 2019 23:46:58 GMT
I don't think that the number of inactive IPMC members is a factor in
anything. They are, by definition, inactive.

So I would vote for the no-op action (#4, I think).

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:39 PM Roman Shaposhnik <>

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:33 PM Justin Mclean <>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It’s been suggested that the IPMC is too large, what do other IPMC
> members think might be a way to address this?
> Personally, I believe that "IPMC is too large" argument is only applicable
> to
> how quickly/easily consensus can be built. That's literally the only
> situation
> when the size of IPMC gets in the way (sometimes).
> Is anyone aware of any other situations where "IPMC is too large" argument
> is actually legit?
> At any rate, the rest of my feedback will be from that single perspective:
> > Please discuss and indicate +1 what you would think would help, you can
> vote for more than one.
> >
> > Some suggestions:
> > 1. Ask all inactive IPMC if they want to continue being on the IPMC and
> see who steps down. Being inactive they are probably not following this
> list so we need to identify and send each one email them personally.
> > 2. There were some questions around merit raised, remove all IPMC
> members who were not on the initial proposal and who were voted in. Those
> left on the IPMC vote back in those who are currently active.
> > 3. Get rid of all IPMC members, and vote (with ASF members vote being
> binding - not sure how else it could be done?) currently active ones back
> in.
> > 4. Do nothing as this is not actually a problem but instead address
> other underlying issues. e.g. lack of mentor engagement.
> I would like to suggest a 5th alternative (again this is from the
> above's perspective):
>    * Don't change anything, but for any situation that requires
> consensus building just be a tad more formal with how we close loops
> and track if we really get as many obstructionists as we thing that
> the size of the IPMC allows. If not -- we don't have a problem.
> > Also re point 2 do you think we should drop that ASF members can
> automatically get IPMC membership and change it to requiring a vote by the
> IPMC? It’s has always seem odd to me that this is the case. We’ve recently
> voted more people in that we’ve had requests from ASF members.
> >
> > Any other sugestions?
> >
> > Options 2 and 3 may cause some issues around mentors, but if they were
> not active then I guess it’s no big loss.
> >
> > And any suggestions on level of activity? Such as:
> > - Emailed the list in the last year.
> > - Reviewed at least one release in that time.
> >
> > It’s already been determined that some (about 15%) of the less than
> active PMC members (out of the 100 odd that are not signed up to the IPMC
> private list) do help out infrequently but that help is very useful. That
> may also apply to other inactive IPMC members, so I would suggest the bar
> for what consider active be kept low.
> I honestly don't see how all of these options of getting people in and
> out of IPMC can actually help with this consensus building thing. So
> yeah -- I'd say #5.
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message