incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
Date Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:53:56 GMT

> On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:39 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacretaz@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>> How is that different from pruning the current IPMC membership by
>>>> removing inactive members?
>>> 
>>> Doing *that* would be straightforward. Take the set of mentors on currently
>>> incubating projects, add the other half dozen who review releases, and set
>>> everyone else to voluntary emeritus status. Done....
>> 
>> Agreed - but I don't see how that improves things anyway, I don't see
>> any problem caused by those inactive members.
> 
> The near-ad-hominem tone of this thread has extracted a reply in my own defense.
> 
> It is a misunderstanding, verging on willful, to claim that the V2
> proposal is primarily intended to remove either inactive or noisy
> persons from the group. it is a fabrication that there is any idea
> that some person other than the board  might select an initial set of
> people to further some particular agenda. The idea here of the small
> group, extracted from something Ross wrote on the Wiki in 2013, is
> that an incubator committee doesn't need to be big and it doesn't need
> to grow via merit, if its only job is to accept the board's delegation
> of a limited set of supervisory tasks. If you make a smaller group, it
> might still contain vigorous disagreement, but on a scale where they
> can manageably reach consensus. It would think less of the board if
> they failed to select people likely to have some significant
> disagreements.

I resent your and Chris’ characterization of this thread.  All that’s been taking place
is a frank and civil discussion of opinions as to what the implication of some proposals mean.
 Your, and Chris’, attempt to characterize them as taking on an ad-hominem tone suggest
to me that we are poking at the Achilles heal of the Iv2 proposal and Chris’ impromptu proposal
to fork the Incubator.

At the heart of both there is a culling of IPMC members.  Sure, the new IPMC may have "Oscar
Madison” and “Felix Ungar” tossed into the same bag but that’s a distraction from
the real problem that I, and maybe Bertrand, are trying to point out.

At the proposals' core is that there are IPMC members who want to participate but would be
left out and in the end the “problems” with the Incubator would not be resolved since,
as Chris accurately puts it, we will have distilled dysfunction. 

But is it dysfunctional?  Only when it tries to be like a school of business and come up with
new and improved processes for bringing in new projects instead of focusing on the core problems
which don’t go away, tooling and mentor accountability.  Otherwise, I think we do a pretty
good job.  We make mistakes, sure, but mistakes will always be made and I think we’ve made
good, focused, incremental pivots to address their causes.


Regards,
Alan



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