incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: should podlings have informal chairs?
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:17:31 GMT
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> 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.

That is not to say that the Incubator should set technical direction
or address issues that should be worked at the PPMC level or with the
help of the relevant officer or board committee.  But it should be the
one to police the mentors.  Are they doing the job that they need to
be doing?

A good example: ooo certainly needs a lot of attention, but it has a
lot of people looking at it, including the VP of Brand Management.  In
this case, the Incubator simply need to verify that, and forward (or
otherwise make available) the PPMC report.  Could those people
occasionally do a better job?  Of course, but that's true of every
human endeavor.  What is clear is that multiple mentors are engaged.
(By the way, don't try to tag me with being the pseudo-chair of that
project; the group truly needs to see the influence of multiple
voices, see that we disagree at times on various issues, but most
importantly see that we stand together on core values).

A bad example: jspwiki.  Are the right people doing the jobs they need
to be doing?  http://s.apache.org/G9K (public),
http://s.apache.org/aot (public) and http://s.apache.org/4Ru (member
only) suggests that they are not.  It saddens me that we can't come to
an agreement that PPMCs need to establish a viable plan to graduate,
build that plan over some predictable period, and then execute to that
plan.  If we fail to do so, I will likely address that problem in a
different direction: first by resigning as mentor for that particular
project, then to poll those that remain to see what their intent is.
Either the project will reboot, or it won't.

Note: I intentionally picked two examples that I'm (nominally in one
case) involved with.  There are plenty of other examples that could
have been chosen, both good and bad.  Any project with an active vote
to graduate (whether that votes passes or not doesn't matter, as long
as the right people are engaged) is in the good category.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message