incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
Date Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:46:20 GMT
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:31, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Noel J. Bergman <>
>> To:
>> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
>> Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>> > Using  this model decentralizes the process
>> So does having 3+ PMC Members  today.
> To me this is a common flaw in both how the IPMC operates today and how
> Greg's proposal relies on 3 Members to get anything accomplished.  If
> you've been paying attention to what actually happens in this PMC over
> time,  you can't possibly have missed all the begging for votes that
> goes on.
> Reliance on 3 overworked people who are typically not podling committers
> to always be there when the project needs them is both unrealistic and
> doesn't scale.  We've been doing it for years, inflicting massive
> pain on the podlings whenever they release or want new committers,
> and it sucks.  That's what my experiment aims to fix.

I hear you, and I think that *if* you have 3+ *active* ASF Members,
then my approach will dramatically improve the process. Also, those
Members in the hot seat are going to be more active because they
*know* they're on the hook. There is nobody to "pass the buck" to.
They are part of the reports to the Board ("One of our PMC Members,
John Doe, has been absent."). If a project has the support, then this
gets the "second-guessing" of the IPMC and the second-level of
unnecessary "oversight" out of the way. It directly introduces the
project to its future place within the organization.


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

View raw message