incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Date Sat, 11 May 2013 16:45:49 GMT

On May 11, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:

> A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the
> entire process of a new project launching with  _no IPMC_ to
> participate in any way.

Can you explain what problem launching new projects with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way
solves?  Maybe this is where the disconnect is.  Is the IPMC the problem or is it the lack
of mentors the problem?

What are the core problems that you are trying to solve?

> Taking a proposal that has been groomed and
> vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the
> board is purely an experiment in board supervision.

Can you explain what is it about the board that's better than having the board members with
the spare bandwidth coming over to the IPMC to help?  What is it about the auspices of the
board that improves things?  What is the exact problem that this solves?

> My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project',
> it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently
> constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and
> can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider.
> The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It
> could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to
> survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney
> VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is
> desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.)

That depends on what the problem is.  If the IPMC is paralyzed then yes, the board should
step in.  I didn't realize that we're there already.  If we are then please be explicit about
it.

But I don't understand why we can't go through the simple exercise that I propose to see where
we have points in common.  I think that doing so will go a long way to generating good will,
as people's positions will be analyzed down to their core, and provide better transparency
as to what people's motivations are.

I'm saying this because I really don't understand why people are espousing these various solutions.
 I want to understand but at the moment it just seems that people are holding on to their
positions without explaining their thoughts down to the core problems that they think they
are trying to solve.

In the end, I think if we're really serous about this we'll end up with bits of everyone's
proposals.


Regards,
Alan


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