incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:38:56 GMT
Personally, I would find IPMC issues much easier to follow if we all 
limited threads to more specific topics, and started new threads for new 
specific topics.  This one is still pretty buried.

On 3/29/2013 1:11 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I don't accept that using yourself as an example of how we can find
> sufficient mentors for all new entries is evidence that your proposal will
> scale and thus address the concerns I have expressed. You are not a typical
> mentor, most of us need sleep.

This is a critical point.  Not only does it show that Chris has a high 
bus factor (although he's no Sam, that's for sure), it's also wildly 
unrepresentative of the average ASF Member, or in fact any likely 
Incubator area contributor.

> I don't believe this topic needs debating as I don't believe the incubation
> process is broken.  Your proposal doesn't actually solve the core problems
> of whether policy says this or that or whether best practice is this or
> that - which ultimately is the only thing the IPMC gets bogged down in.
> Your proposal simply moves all the hard parts to the membership and thus to
> the board. Moving problems does not solve them.

I'll just offer one general commentary here.  It feels like a lot of 
discussion recently has gone into the minutiae of decision making rules. 
  What it feels like we need are both 1) more shepherds who are 
*predictably* active at assisting with their podlings and getting 
well-written reports in shape, and 2) more direct leadership that seeks 
basic consensus on very specific and clear new changes, but doesn't let 
discussions get weighed down with too many options, or stalled by a 
relative handful of -0s.

1) here is critical, and... I don't know how to get more predictably 
active people, but that's exactly what I've been trying to say with "we 
need to grow more organizational volunteers" in my board statements.

2) is simply a reflection (and perhaps a not thoroughly thought through 
one) of the reality that we've shown we're bad at scaling 
*organizational* decision making to the Membership scale.  (Note that 
this is different than *technical* decision making.)

An analogy is the success of the three VP positions reborn from the 
fiery demise of the PRC.  The PRC had every interested member trying to 
help drive everything, but rarely finishing things.  The current three 
VPs each work with interested members for backup and advise, but 
fundamentally are responsible as individuals for covering their areas to 
the board.

- Shane

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

View raw message