incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))
Date Sat, 02 Mar 2019 11:54:52 GMT
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:17 AM sebb <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

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