incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))
Date Sun, 03 Mar 2019 07:41:53 GMT
Greg,

Would you categorize yourself as one of these drive-by kibitzers?




On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:55 AM Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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