incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re: should podlings have informal chairs?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:39:38 GMT
Wow quite a thread.

+1 to the concept that the Champion is responsible for ensuring the new 
PPMC has a mentor who agrees to act as acting chair for the project.

+1 to having a chair for PPMCs, to help ensure that reports are done in 
a timely and appropriate fashion.

+1 to having the acting chair start as a mentor (i.e. a Member).  Make 
having the mentors and PPMC agree on a future acting chair as one of the 
steps towards graduation (hence, that acting chair becomes the chair of 
the eventual TLP)

+1 to what Joe is saying below.  The Incubator needs to do a far better 
job both supporting it's projects (better mentors, better IPMC 
oversight), as well as managing itself (more efficient and useful 
reports to the board, website documentation).

We have some mentors who do an amazing job, and some IPMC members who 
help with real work in a wide variety of areas.  We need to ensure that 
all of the mentors and IPMC step up - or at least ensure that the work 
is better organized within the IPMC to help ensure that all our podlings 
get appropriate guidance on their journey.

- Shane

On 2011-11-21 8:03 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.

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

View raw message