incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
Date Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:55:13 GMT
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 4 Apr 2013 15:17, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
wrote:
> > On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
> >> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> >> > On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
> >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> 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.
>

Agreed.

> 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.
>

Well I've proposed we require mentor signoff in the past. It was rejected
because our mentors are volunteers.

I proposed we require shepherd signoff. It was rejected because our
shepherds are volunteers.

I, and apparently you Greg, don't think think it is unreasonable to expect
the mentors to take collective responsibility like this. I would continue
to support this idea. Doing so addresses my concerns about the missing
oversight in Chris' proposal because the board need not visit IPMCs to
verify the report is accurate (as shepherds do now).

...

> 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.

Agreed. This was a large part of the reasoning behind my proposal to
formally recognise shepherds. But I concede that your
modification/clarification of Chris' proposal makes it viable and even
preferable to my own proposal (assuming ComDev coverage of the
non-oversight aspects).

Ross

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