incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Date Sat, 11 May 2013 19:27:33 GMT
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's
>> the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not.
>
> Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list
> recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes.
>
> If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is
> a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no
> consensus. This isn't a majority issue.
>
> I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to
> send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more
> accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for
> permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel
> confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a
> lack of consensus in favor of the idea.
>

I'm with Benson on that particular point, if there is a vote to be
called it should be called by the ones in favour, but i don't think
any vote is needed here.

I do think some small experiments would be better and easier more
gentle and less divisive approach than trying to push through global
Incubator changes. You don't need to be king to go write some tooling,
you don't need Incubator consensus to nominate some poddling people to
the PMC. We could pick a handful of poddlings and ask their champions
to report monthly and see if that makes a difference, and we could
pick another handful and strip away their champion and shepards and
instead just give them two active mentors and see what difference that
makes.

I'm not suggesting a 'direct-to-PMC' trial, i'm suggesting trying
whats been label as "board managed poddlings" or "probationary TLPs"
seeded from existing poddlings. That seems to me a more direct way to
get to Joe's "instill self-governance as early as is feasible" than
electing the poddling people to the Incubator PMC, and it helps avoid
Ross's concern about poddlings "likely to run into problems according
to our collective experience". But for that we do need the question
put to the board first. Even if they if the board replied that
probationary TLPs are batshit insane that would be terrific because
then we could stop having this branch of the discussion keep coming
up.

   ...ant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message