incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:09:45 GMT
We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to
IPMC. The amount of work the board does on x podlings weach month is less
than the work they do on x TLPs. That is without the IPMC addressing issues
that come up every now and again. We can go into detail if it becomes
necessary.

There are problems of efficiency, that is what I believe is the problem.
But as I said we need to agree to differ at this time.

Where I differ from you is that not when  each podling had 3 active and
engaged mentors, all would be good in those cases. That is rarely the case
though. Therefore your proposal means either a reduction in the number of
accepted projects (problem: how do we know which to accept), a reduction in
the quality of TLPs (problem: reduction in perceived quality of all ASF
brands), or a bigger oversight role for the board (problem: will the board
accept this?)

For me the first option is the only outcome that can be considered. If that
is a desired change (it is not for me) then your proposal is great. For now
though the change I want is a more efficient IPMC and this is why we need
to agree to differ at least until more of the IPMC have a stomach for
radical change.

Ross

Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 29 Mar 2013 01:49, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Hey Ross,
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>
> >I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
> >each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded. That
> >is why the IPMC submits a board report.
>
> What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1] outside of
> what the board already does for PMCs? I count a total of 0 in the right
> hand
> column of my table.
>
> Being specific myself:
>
> 1. Directors review the IPMC report, and are charged (at least the Director
> shepherd for the Incubator is; but so are other board members) with
> reviewing
> the podlings present in the Incubator report. There was discussion before
> about
> removing specific podling reports, and only leaving the summary -- this
> was nixed.
> Directors are still charged with reviewing podling individual reports,
> same as
> they are with actual project reports. Thus, if you say there are no more
> podlings,
> as I do in my proposal, please define, specifically, where the extra work
> is?
>
> 2. We always wax at the ASF about there being extremely little centralized
> authority.
> Oh, there's a problem? The board can't fix that -- it's a bazooka! Fix it
> yourself,
> PMC! OK, so with that said, what's the problem then by saying, no more
> podlings,
> there are simply PMCs? New projects come in to the ASF via steps 3-5 in my
> proposal --
> through discussion on general@incubator that includes discussions of
> merit, community, etc,
> guided by the existing Incubator documentation. When a VOTE is ready, the
> board VOTEs
> on the incoming project(s). This is true today. Incubator "podlings" are
> *not officially
> endorsed projects of the ASF* until they are turned into TLPs by board
> resolution.
> Again, so what's changed?
>
> What's even more hilarious and illustrative of the guise towards
> decentralization
> is that there have been discussions within this very same thread that
> instead of
> telling the board there are problems with the Incubator, that we should
> "fix them ourselves"
> here. Hehe. Kind of a reflexive but powerful look in the mirror about the
> desire
> to move *away* from centralization.
>
> Thus, I ask, why do we have a *centralized* (fake Board) IPMC if the goal
> of the ASF
> is for the PMCs to be self governing? The "Apache way" is intimated
> through tribal
> knowledge of its members. Activeness of a member (and 3 of them on a PMC)
> is something
> that the board is aware of, so these things will get caught at project
> creation, and/or
> through personnel additions incrementally.
>
> >
> >That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
> >stated he wants to address the specific problem that brought all this up
> >again. For now lets agree to differ.
>
> No problem -- I think we're closer than it seems, but yes, I'm fine with
> dropping it.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
>
> >
> >Ross
> >
> >
> >
> >On 28 March 2013 16:19, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Ross,
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
> >> >legally
> >> >> >responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it
> >>replaces
> >> >>it
> >> >> >with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
> >> >>
> >> >> Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
> >> >> Incubator
> >> >> deconstruction proposal [1]. In fact, it does not make the board
> >>legally
> >> >> responsible
> >> >> in any different way than the board is currently responsible for its
> >> >> plethora of
> >> >> TLPs -- IOW, it doesn't change a thing. It basically suggests that
> >> >> incoming projects
> >> >> can simply fast track to (t)LPs from the get go, so long as they have
> >> >>>= 3
> >> >> ASF members
> >> >> present to help execute and manage the Incubator "process" which
> >>still
> >> >> exists in
> >> >> my proposed deconstruction.
> >> >
> >> >My point is that all the oversight currently provided by the IPMC would
> >> >have to be provided by the board. We already know that having three
> >> >mentors
> >> >does not guarantee adequate support for podlings.
> >>
> >> I guess I would ask "what oversight"? There is no global IPMC oversight.
> >> Ever since Joe's experiment, and even before, the podlings that get
> >>through
> >> the Incubator (and I've taken quite a few now, and recently, so I think
> >>I
> >> can speak from a position of experience here within the last few years),
> >> are the ones that have active mentors and *distributed*, not
> >>*centralized*
> >> oversight.
> >>
> >> IOW, I'm not seeing any IPMC oversight at the moment. I'm seeing good
> >> mentors,
> >> located in each podling, distributed, that get podlings through. Those
> >>that
> >> stall well they need help. Usually the help is debated endlessly, and
> >>not
> >> solved,
> >> or simply solved with more active/better mentors.
> >>
> >> So, that's my whole point. You either agree with me that there is no
> >>IPMC
> >> oversight at the moment (for years now), and that really podlings are
> >>TLPs
> >> (well the ones that graduate within a fixed set of time as Sam was
> >>trying
> >> to measure
> >> before, or simply point out that is) or you still believe that there is
> >> oversight
> >> within the IPMC. I personally don't. That's why I wrote the proposal.
> >>And
> >> I think
> >> that's at least evident to me and more than a few others that that's the
> >> problem here
> >> and that's why I don't think the Incubator should exist anymore in its
> >> current form
> >> and should be deconstructed :)
> >>
> >> Thanks for your comments and conversation and for listening.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> >> Senior Computer Scientist
> >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> >> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> >> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> >Programme Leader (Open Development)
> >OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message