incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: A smaller IPMC
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:13:35 GMT
I think this thread misses the point of the original observation.

Firstly, I've not seen anyone suggest that removing inactive IPMC members will make any difference.
What I've seen is a suggestion that active IPMC members on general@ should be expected to
be on the private list.

While there aren't many conversations over there. When there is one it is important.

Secondly, I think the framing of #4 (which I agree with in the context of this thread, given
the above observation) incorrectly identifies the "real" problem. While inactive mentors a
problem for individual podlings I don't believe they are the cause of the inteference the
IPMC can display when it comes to things like podling releases.

In other words I consider this whole thread a distraction.

Get Outlook for Android<>

From: Kenneth Knowles <>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:49:29 PM
Subject: Re: A smaller IPMC

+1 for #4 noop, at least until there's evidence of a problem.


On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:27 PM Woonsan Ko <> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:33 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?
> >
> > 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.
> +1 to my modified version from #2 (and 0 to the others as I don't
> think they will help a lot):
> "Remove all IPMC members who were not on the initial proposal and who
> were voted in. Those left on the IPMC vote for those, as members, who
> can recruit, guide mentors, and review podling graduations, and they
> also vote for those, as mentors (committers), who have ever been
> active mentors for podlings."
> Mentors are committers: if someone starts contributing in this
> community, they are to be recognized and invited to a mentor
> (committer) in this project; if they contribute more for the community
> consistently, they are to be invited to a IPMC member. In smaller
> IPMC, IPMC members focus more on helping/guiding mentors and reviewing
> graduations in various aspects, and mentors focus more on detail
> issues in podlings, providing enough overview and information to IPMC.
> I think this will make it a fairer merit-earning game, to new comers
> getting helps from mentors and (graduation and/or high-level) reviews
> from members, watchers considering to help, mentors eager to help
> graduations, more focused members, ...
> >
> > 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.
> +1 to always be voting, whether they are ASF members or not, like other
> PMCs.
> >
> > 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.
> My modified version includes all active people as mentors (committers)
> at least, so there's no loss as well.
> Regards,
> Woonsan
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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