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 Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:48:33 GMT
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 27 Mar 2013 20:12, "Christian Grobmeier" <grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent to the one item in the above
> > governance structure that is missing today. That is why shouldn't it
have
> > an equivalent of "ASF Members elect a board". It would something like
IPMC
> > elect 9-15 Shepherds. These Shepherds are responsible for ensuring that
the
> > IPMC membership is heard and that decisions are made for the good of the
> > IPMC. They approve membership of the IPMC, they approve project
> > entry/graduation/retirement but, and this is critical, they report to
the
> > IPMC. Most of the time their role is one of delegation to the PPMCs,
> > occasionally their role is to break a deadlock by listening to the IPMC
and
> > making the best decision it can.
>
> it sounds a little bit as the Shepherds would be the "true" PMC of the
IPMC.

No. The IPMC would be the true IPMC, but they elect a representative body
to make the IPMC function more efficiently. That body remains answerable to
the IPMC. This is important because the mentors should be the ones making
recommendations about graduation, report approval etc. More importantly
only PMC members have binding votes on releases. The shepherds delegate all
this to the PPMC (and its mentors). The shepherds only act to ensure the
PPMC is capable, unhindered and healthy.

>
> Also if we follow this, Shepherds doesn't sound so nice. Actually it
> is a kind of Board.

Yes it is. I avoided new names to prevent the false impression that this is
adding new layers. The Shepherds already do almost everything I'm
suggesting. The only addition is for them to be the ones who break
consensus deadlocks. Why them? Because their role means they have more
visibility into the breadth of the Incubator than many IPMC members.

> I don't think a chair should act with authority.

Sometimes it is necessary, but I agree that it should be very rare. The
problem with the IPMC is that it is needed too frequently. My proposal, as
you observe, provides a representative group, answerable to the IPMC, to
build consensus on these occasions.




> I am still not convinced if we need another
> layer of people - or if we just minimize the IPMC and give Mentors (=
> Committers) that binding vote.

I have no doubt that my proposal is imperfect, let's find the holes and see
if they are pluggable.

Chris' model is similar in some ways as has been observed. I'm yet to see
how the scale problem will be solved, but maybe I'm remembering the
proposal incorrectly,

In think a fundamental difference between Chris' radical model and mine is
revolution vs evolution. Personally I think the current IPMC model works
well 98% of the time, so evolution is appropriate,


>
> > Just a thought.... of course, my solution is as flawed as anyone elses
and
> > I look to the IPMC Chair to find the "good enough" solution that will
allow
> > us to move on (sorry Benson).
>
> I look to all IPMC members.

I meant Benson should coordinate, not dictate :-)

Thanks for your useful critique.

Ross

>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 27 March 2013 11:55, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose that as chair I ought to be heard from here. I've been off
for
> >> Passover for a bit.
> >>
> >> In my view, the IPMC manifests two problems. I'd like to label them as
> >> 'operational' and 'decision-making'. This thread is about
decision-making,
> >> but with some people seeing using terms like 'disfunctional', I think
it's
> >> important to keep 'function' in context.
> >>
> >> Operationally, we 'started' 1.3 years ago with an acute problem of
> >> under-supervised and/or 'malingering' podlings. Under Jukka's
leadership,
> >> we made a series of incremental changes that have considerably
improved the
> >> situation. On the other hand, the recent influx of many new podlings
> >> worries me, because 'improved' is not the same as 'fixed'. And I'm not
> >> entirely sure that 'fixed' is possible. I'd like to see us find more
> >> incremental changes that help further, and I'd like them to scale via
some
> >> mechanism other than my own personal time. I see this as a reason to
put
> >> more thought into shepherds and champions. But I don't see this
situation
> >> as 'disfunctional'.
> >>
> >> On the decision-making front, recent phenomena have demonstrated to me
that
> >> this group is not succeeding in applying consensus process to decision
> >> making. I could write five paragraphs on what that process is and what
it
> >> requires, but I'm not inclined to. I support the proposal here to apply
> >> majority rules to IPMC membership. When consensus process fails here,
we
> >> have endless email threads. Many of us find these stressful,
> >> time-consuming, and disheartening.
> >>
> >> Under the proposal at hand, we'd still DISCUSS, and I'd hope that we
would
> >> all try to be thoughtful and constructive and look for ways to agree.
> >> However, after a certain amount of discussion, there would be a vote,
and
> >> that would be that.
> >>
> >> If this 'works' -- if people here find that it strikes a good balance
> >> between seeking consensus and limiting time and stress, we're good.
> >>
> >> It might not work. Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this
large,
> >> diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent with
> >> Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings. In which case someone
> >> might want to dust off the proposals from 1.3 years ago that offered
more
> >> or less radical alternatives. I'm personally not ready to go there yet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> >> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Justin Mclean <
justinmclean@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > ...As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in
> >> order
> >> > to become
> >> > > a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of
> >> > [1])...
> >> >
> >> > you don't - Apache members can become IPMC members just by asking,
but
> >> > others can also be elected as incubator PMC members. We do have some
> >> > such mentors currently.
> >> >
> >> > -Bertrand
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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