incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: should podlings have informal chairs?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:00:32 GMT
+1, this sounds great to me.


On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> To me a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the reports are
> misdirected- instead of informing the board about the activities of
> the IPMC, it tells them about the podling's activities, which doesn't
> scale properly.
> We should be reporting to the board about OUR work, not the work of
> the podlings.  Podlings should only be brought in for a few specific
> examplesto mention.  That's the first thing to correct.
> Once we start reporting about the crap WE did, then we can start figuring
> out all the crap that's not getting done by mentors who aren't participating.
> It doesn't matter that there are lots of well-intentioned but otherwise useless
> people mentoring projects, the fact is that they only harm the org by not prodding
> these projects along a graduation path or funneling them towards the exit door.  Part
> of how they manage to get away with that is that we pretend its important to a podling
> to create a sustainable community around itself, which is something most of them
> have no control over.  That is the reason for the long bouts of stalling on many
> levels, we need to do the sane thing and drop that bit of pretense, and yes even
> graduating projects that haven't necessarily met the silly developer diversity
> requirements- rules are not appropriate here, only very fuzzy benchmarks.
> WE are responsible for evaluating the progress of our podlings, ALL of them, and
> clutch can help us do that at a basic level as a group.  But we need to figure out,
> quickly, how to change the review process for podling reports in a scalable way
> without us all being burnt out all at once.  I think the review needs to take place
> over a few days, on the podling's own dev lists, by 3 IPMC members actively voting
> on them.  We can still collate the podling reports on the wiki, but the report we
> hand to the board should come from us, and it should be the product of those reviews.
> We can do this wiki-style if we want to, or just have Noel poll this list for "mentor
> comments" to be included in the report.  A quick scan of the podling lists wrt those
> report votes should be sufficient to determine if a podling needs more IPMC representation,
> and can be done by Noel or collectively if we'd like to start doing more cross-checking.
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Benson Margulies <>
>> To:
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: should podlings have informal chairs?
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies 
>> <> wrote:
>>>> Sam,
>>>> Do you see any validity in my theory that the ipmc is so large and
>>>> diffuse as to be directionless?
>>> I don't see that as a necessary consequence.  The ASF is large and
>>> diffuse, yet each month we pretty consistently get 6+ Directors to
>>> review and sign off on each report.  The board is careful to not set
>>> technical direction, but we do create and track action items, and work
>>> to make sure that the individual PMCs are self-governing and get the
>>> help that they need from the relevant board committees.
>> Compare, if you would, the board of six to the ipmc. There aren't six,
>> or sixteen, ipmc members who feel it's their job to review every PPMC
>> report before the whole business goes to the board. There's a chair,
>> who due to his volunteer status like the rest of us, shows more or
>> less engagement with the goings-on on this mailing list at different
>> times.
>> The ipmc more or less delegates to the mentors, and passes the PPMC
>> reports up to the board, with not much digestive activity in between.
>> In this sense I guess I'm trying to agree with you, but I wonder how
>> to get a giant committee of people, most of whom signed up just to
>> mentor one project, to actually step up and exercise more oversight.
>> Of course we've got a few people like Sebb who try to stay on top of
>> everything.
>> Since there are only six board members, they all know that they,
>> themselves, have to read this stuff and think about it. If there were
>> 106, I doubt that anything would get attended to unless a subset were
>> somehow tasked. So I suppose that I'm trying to float the idea that,
>> somehow, less than the full ipmc needs to focus. I suppose that the
>> committee could create a category of meta-mentor, and people who sign
>> up for that role would be signing up to read all the reports and
>> perhaps even look over the shoulders a bit of the projects.
>> Should I believe
>> that
>> there are 878 ipmc members, or is this some sort of ldap artifact?
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

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

View raw message