incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))
Date Mon, 04 Mar 2019 03:37:31 GMT
I'd like to understand Greg's concerns better.

The complaint that I saw has to do with comments on release candidates, which I believe there
is a straightforward solution for (don't be so picky about the first podling releases).

Are there any other instances of IPMC members meddling in podlings' affairs?

Craig


> On Mar 2, 2019, at 3:54 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com <mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:50 AM sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 03:45, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big
>> problem
>>>> either. We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again
>> later
>>>> if a community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave
>> and
>>>> then join again.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Some context, over 300 projects have gone through the incubator, 50
>> are
>>>> there currently, each requires a champion and 3 mentors at the start
>> (all
>>>> IPMC members), even with some mentors working on multiple podling it's
>> not
>>>> surprising the IPMC is 300 people or so. Nor should it be that a large
>>>> number of them are inactive as most of the projects they were involved
>> in
>>>> have graduated (or retired).
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>>> But despite this some still think it is an issue so we IMO we should
>>>> address it, unless they change their minds, and say so here.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally, I don't think that is a reason to reduce the IPMC count.
>>>> I think it needs to be established WHY it is thought to be an issue
>> first.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It encourages drive-by bikeshedding. "I'm an IPMC Member from a few years
>>> back. I see $foo, and OMG need to comment on it."
>>> 
>>> Did anybody stop and read the concerns recently raised to the Board? Much
>>> of the focus on that email was about such drive-by commenting.
>>> 
>>> Thus, reduce the opportunity for drive-by.
>> 
>> Since the general@ list is public, I don't think reducing the IPMC
>> will stop comments.
>> 
> 
> So? It is to reduce the number of people who feel empowered to meddle into
> everything every podling does. You want to fix general@ ??, then go ahead.
> I want to see people who choose not to *participate* in the IPMC [by
> subscribing to private@] dropped from the roster. The whole world can chat
> on general@. But if you want to be *part* of the IPMC, and want a binding
> vote, and want to really throw-in on Incubator matters, then you damned
> well better subscribe.
> 
> The basic structure of 200+ people all having "merit" to jump into a
> podling's pond is a priori broken. We have *specific* feedback that this is
> true. Not a guess. Not some survey. A "letter" signed by numerous
> individuals that this is the case. So until the Incubator decides its basic
> structure is Wrong(tm), and stops pushing back against that feedback, then
> what is a simple reversible change to try and disempower the knuckleheads
> who want to throw in, on the good work done by our podlings? ... Right.
> Trim the IPMC.
> 
> -g

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org <mailto:clr@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>

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