On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:31, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 10:00:40 PM
>> Subject: RE: Radical revamp (was: an experiment)
>>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> > Using this model decentralizes the process
>>
>> So does having 3+ PMC Members today.
>
> To me this is a common flaw in both how the IPMC operates today and how
> Greg's proposal relies on 3 Members to get anything accomplished. If
> you've been paying attention to what actually happens in this PMC over
> time, you can't possibly have missed all the begging for votes that
> goes on.
>
> Reliance on 3 overworked people who are typically not podling committers
> to always be there when the project needs them is both unrealistic and
> doesn't scale. We've been doing it for years, inflicting massive
> pain on the podlings whenever they release or want new committers,
> and it sucks. That's what my experiment aims to fix.
I hear you, and I think that *if* you have 3+ *active* ASF Members,
then my approach will dramatically improve the process. Also, those
Members in the hot seat are going to be more active because they
*know* they're on the hook. There is nobody to "pass the buck" to.
They are part of the reports to the Board ("One of our PMC Members,
John Doe, has been absent."). If a project has the support, then this
gets the "second-guessing" of the IPMC and the second-level of
unnecessary "oversight" out of the way. It directly introduces the
project to its future place within the organization.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
