incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: TL;DR
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:16:10 GMT
On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
>> ComDev."
>
> Ross, I'm not a candidate.  But I certainly don't believe that.

That's good to hear. I'm desperately trying to catch up with all this.
It is currently 2:48 AM and I should be in bed.

> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
> board.

That would be fine except that the board is not a subtle instrument of
mentoring. It's a sledgehammer. The board will not, I assume, spend
time working with incubating projects to help them resolve their
issues. They will say "go sort it out or get out".

The projects then turn to where?

I believe there are huge cracks in this proposal and it seems to me
that it will fall to ComDev (via the board) to close the gaps. Maybe
this is a good thing. But I as chair of that ComDev I want to fully
understand what is expected of our small committee.

I don't like that nobody has asked ComDev if it wants to change. It is
assumed that ComDev will take the documentation. When this was first
raised by Greg I raised concerns. Specifically ComDev was created to
manage GSoC and other such activities. As part of this it is supposed
to direct people to the right place. It is where newcomers come to
find the right committee list,  the right documentation pages or the
right mentor. It is not supposed to be the fountain of all knowledge.
We are a *very* long way from being where I want us to be in this
respect.

I don't like it that the supporters of this proposal are in denial
about the need for support for failing podlings. If it is not denial,
if the intention is that failing podlings will be culled then fine,
state it up-front so we know the issue has been considered (Bill, I
recognise, you did so in this mail, but you are not a candidate).

> Incubator is a many-too-layered onion today, and it
> seems people keep trying to wrap Chris's proposal in more layers of
> Onion, because it is insufficiently complex to result in 100 people
> arguing with one another for days on end.

I don't know who "people" are, but like Chris you seem to be
attributing "peoples" opinions to me. Show me where I have said we
need the IPMC? Show me where I have said I don't support this
proposal? Show me where I have said we need more layers?

All I have said, repeatedly in a number of different ways, is that the
plan is incomplete and I am concerned that it will be ComDev that has
to pick up the pieces because this proposal removes all other possible
support channels when the VP + mentors channel fails.

I just want someone to address *my* issue as ComDev chair directly.

Benson came closest quite some mails ago when he highlighted that the
proposal means we need to vet mentors more, but I see nothing in the
proposal that covers this.

Ross

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


Mime
View raw message