Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 46328 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 00:36:15 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 00:36:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 55363 invoked by uid 500); 31 Dec 2003 00:35:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 55282 invoked by uid 500); 31 Dec 2003 00:35:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: no List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 55206 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 00:35:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.devtech.com) (66.112.202.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 00:35:57 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.devtech.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.2.0-dev) with SMTP ID 2 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:36:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Noel J. Bergman" To: Subject: RE: PPMCs and oversight Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:37:38 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FF1FA61.4010707@wingsofhermes.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Berin, > I said in an e-mail some time back that I suspect we are are > violently agreeing. I still believe that :>. :-) > Your above point exactly matches my desire. I'm not looking for what > I call "the accountable person" to drive and lead etc. in the normal > course of events. > However, the 80/20 rule applies. In 80% of cases (I hope more :>), > everything will work beautifully, the mentors will hardly ever get > involved and all will be just peachy. The PPMC will drive everything > and having had an accountable person will make absolutely no difference > whatsoever. You are talking about oversight and reporting. By ensuring that multiple PMC members are participating on each PPMC; by instilling a sense of responsibility and accountability in the PPMC, itself; by using the STATUS file; and by asking for periodic reports, I believe that we can be alert for the exceptions. We should be designing our structure for the normal case. When an abnormal case happens, that is when the Incubator PMC Chair can take charge to restore normalcy (personally, or through mentors designated at that time). But it is not uncommon that if you design rules because of exceptions, that people come to treat them as if they also apply to the norm. Now ... why not designate people beforehand to provide corrective action(s)? Perhaps for the reasons that Sam is often quiet as a PMC Chair, or Greg is very careful about which e-mail address he uses. Because they have found that it *does* make a difference. Once you designate someone in a role, it can be very hard for others to treat them as a peer. And I would be expecially sensitive to that in the Incubator, where we may have a good number of new people who may already view PMC members differently from themselves. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org