incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <d...@brondsema.net>
Subject Re: Cultivating Outstanding IP Stewards
Date Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:57:55 GMT
On 11/09/2013 03:38 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> Hi Marvin
> 
> Am 09.11.13 07:15, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 08:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> IMO the IPMC cannot delegate legal oversight to a sub-committee  (for
>>>> example) unless that sub-committee consisted of members of the IPMC.
>>>> The
>>>> reason for this is hat only members of the IPMC are recognized by
>>>> the board
>>>> and thus only IPMC members have binding votes.
>>> That is what the board has done to date. That is not the only
>>> possibility in terms of what the board *could* do, which is much more
>>> where my question was leading.
>> The issue was brought before the Board earlier this week and they have
>> explicitly bounced it back to us.  Their rationale is that the problem
>> lies
>> within the scope of project governance that the Board has delegated to
>> the
>> Incubator PMC.  The Board has plenty going on these days; I can
>> understand
>> that they don't want to get involved in debates over e.g. the nitty
>> gritty
>> details of pTLP design.
>>
>> So, it's our responsibility to design a solution using only the resources
>> currently available to us.  If we exercise a little creativity and
>> flexibility, I don't think we will find ourselves unduly constrained.
>>
>>> My issue is that granting PMC membership is too big a step for many
>>> podling members. Going from being newbie podling member, to a part of a
>>> team responsible for 50+ incubator projects is, with the freedom to
>>> mentor other podlings, is too big a step for most podling members, and
>>> will remain scary even if you attempt to restrict 'powers' through
>>> social convention.
>> That sounds unreasonably pessimistic.  Historically, when contributors
>> from
>> active podlings have been nominated, vetted and successfully voted
>> onto the
>> IPMC, things have worked out very well:
>>
>>      Brian Duxbury (Thrift)
>>      Richard Hirsch (ESME)
>>      Marvin Humphrey (Lucy)
>>      Karl Wright (ManifoldCF)
>>      Dave Fisher (OpenOffice)
>>      Andrei Savu (Provisionr)
>>
>> I'm proud to be part of that group.  I would like to see it grow -- in my
>> view, the Incubator has erred by not recruiting aggressively enough!
> Probabily yes, but a step between IPMC and nothing would lower the
> barrier. Well, I'm shepherd now, reading the lists etc. But I beleve the
> incubator miss samething to show the ability to be a mentor. Maybe
> something like a Assistent mentor. The assistent Mentor can be assinged
> to a podling but have for exemple not the right to subscribe the private
> lists. That would probabily also encourage more.
> 

I think we're discussing moving podling contributors up towards the
IPMC, not adding more mentors (the too many mentors problem is real,
IMO).  And podling contributors are already on the private list.


-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
               <><


Mime
View raw message