incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:16:42 GMT
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
> On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
>> <> wrote:
>> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
>> >> nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
>> >
>> > Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
>> > huge range of tasks such as IP oversight and mentoring to the IPMC.
>> I believe this is simply a matter of training and mentor oversight.
> That is the key issue.
> I can name many really good mentors. The problem is that prior to the new
> processes introduced by Jukka we had a great many projects that stagnated
> because of inattentive mentoring. The current IPMC reporting process picks
> those up and addresses them internally within the IPMC. This is the reason
> that we have seen more podlings graduate in the last year.
> If we remove that aspect of the IPMCs oversight then who will catch these
> projects that don't have mentors actively looking after them? It will be
> the boards responsibility to do that. I contest that this does not scale.
> We need a solution that will scale appropriately whilst also removing the
> inefficiencies introduced by a large IPMC.

The Board easily deals with this. Today, we look to the VP to give us a report.

Let's say that a provisional/podling/probationary TLP requires (3)
Members ("mentors") to sign off on each report. If a report fails to
receive those three sign-offs, then it does not get accepted. Simple
as that.

The project then needs to hit up (say) general@community.a.o to troll
for new Members/mentors to fill the slacker slot that occurred.

I see no undue burden on the Board in this approach.

>>> Ross says the Board pays less attention to these (by implication) than
>>> say the 137 TLPs at present. Ross is one Director. Good for him.
>> I, personally, pay as much attention to the PPMCs as I do to TLPs. I'm
>> active in the IPMC and thus have more visibility. That doesn't mean they
>> should be expected to by me or by anyone else.
>> If we alter the incoming-project mechanism, then yes: maybe we
>> *should* expect the Directors to read the reports with a little more
>> attention. But if we demand that N ASF Members track the podling, and
>> approve the report, then sure... the Board may be able to
>> delegate/slack a little bit on those reports.
> In principle this is fine, but in principle the IPMC already demands that N
> ASF Members track the podling so what is changing?

Because there is slack space. "gee. a mentor didn't sign off on the
podling report" is very different from the Board saying "rejected.
get/find your Members to sign off. we will close you in six months if
we see no valid reports by then."

I also believe that the Board is more active than the IPMC. The
Incubator shepherd process (modeled after our Board shepherds) has
brought out the *active* IPMC Members. Those correlate to the
Directors -- they are active in the PMC-level concerns. They have
dedication to the Incubator aspect of our Foundation, yet I don't
think they provide as much coverage (yet!) as the Directors. If that
aspect of the Incubator expanded, then we'd likely be in great shape.
But I'd also see that as Board replacement, and something I believe
the Board is quite capable of doing anyways.

etc etc. The short answer in my mind is: podlings need to learn how to
report to the Board. So fine: make them do that. And make them have N
Members "on staff" to avoid the worst of problems, which may really
waste the Board's time.

(but even then, the Board is quite good at marking a report as bogus
via the comment section, and later reviewers learning to skip, or
detail review, or whatever; a minor change in our process/time)

And in the end, the Board adapts to the needs of the Foundation.
Believe me, when I was Chairman and spent two hours go over reports on
the conference call... something had to break. *THAT* was
non-scalable. We're nowhere near that kind of hell.



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

View raw message