incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Change in Due Dates for Board reports
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:18:30 GMT
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
<nour.mohammad@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
>> <nour.mohammad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi...
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > PLEASE NOTE!
>> >> >
>> >> > From the ASF Board:
>> >> >
>> >> >  For now on, all reports to the board for review/inclusion at the
>> >> >  board meetings will now be due 1 WEEK before the meeting. Reports
>> >> >  submitted late will be declined and you'll need to resubmit the
>> >> >  next month.
>> >> >
>> >> > This means that Incubator reports really need to be finished by the
>> end
>> >> of
>> >> > the FIRST week of the month.
>> >>
>> >> Why not make it easy?  Make incubator reports due by the first of the
>> >> month.  Doing so doesn't increase workload, doesn't meaningfully
>> >> increase latency/relevance, and gives the incubator more of a chance
>> >> to recover (and actually obtain a report in time) when a deadline is
>> >> missed.
>> >
>> > IMHO one week before the board meeting as a final date is fine and at the
>> > same time will give the chance for review and resolving any issues if
>> they
>> > exist.
>>
>> Can you support this belief with evidence?  It is not uncommon for
>> podlings to miss being included in board report, and this month the
>> incubator report itself wasn't reviewed due to it being late.
>>
>> I can tell you (as a Director) that if those problems are fixed,
>> nobody on the board would care if the deadline was mere hours before
>> forwarding onto the board, but I do want to point out that there is a
>> real problem that needs some solution, even if it isn't the one I
>> proposed.
>>
>
> Well from my own experience that this time frame is  good, but for some
> projects mentors are not that active and hence they are not pushing things
> forward till it is too late, and hence either way you will get delayed
> reports, only this time you can get more delayed reports.
>
> I totally understand the point you are trying to make, but what I am trying
> to say that time limits are not the problem, from what I saw it is either
> the problem of mentors, not being active, or podling developers are not
> active or even both, these are the real reasons and having delayed reports
> are just one symptom.

I'll agree, but what I would like to see is that incubator taking a
greater role in identifying inactive mentors and inactive podlings and
taking corrective action.  Note: that includes me both in (a) needing
to take a greater role and (b) as an inactive mentor for at least one
PPMC.

To be fair: this month's incubator report demonstrates an intent to do
exactly that.  Please don't interpret what I am saying as "bad
incubator: change", please interpret it as "good incubator: more!".

- 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