Hi Sam... On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din > <nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din > >> <nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi... > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > PLEASE NOTE! > >> >> > > >> >> > From the ASF Board: > >> >> > > >> >> > For now on, all reports to the board for review/inclusion at the > >> >> > board meetings will now be due 1 WEEK before the meeting. Reports > >> >> > submitted late will be declined and you'll need to resubmit the > >> >> > next month. > >> >> > > >> >> > This means that Incubator reports really need to be finished by the > >> end > >> >> of > >> >> > the FIRST week of the month. > >> >> > >> >> Why not make it easy? Make incubator reports due by the first of the > >> >> month. Doing so doesn't increase workload, doesn't meaningfully > >> >> increase latency/relevance, and gives the incubator more of a chance > >> >> to recover (and actually obtain a report in time) when a deadline is > >> >> missed. > >> > > >> > IMHO one week before the board meeting as a final date is fine and at > the > >> > same time will give the chance for review and resolving any issues if > >> they > >> > exist. > >> > >> Can you support this belief with evidence? It is not uncommon for > >> podlings to miss being included in board report, and this month the > >> incubator report itself wasn't reviewed due to it being late. > >> > >> I can tell you (as a Director) that if those problems are fixed, > >> nobody on the board would care if the deadline was mere hours before > >> forwarding onto the board, but I do want to point out that there is a > >> real problem that needs some solution, even if it isn't the one I > >> proposed. > >> > > > > Well from my own experience that this time frame is good, but for some > > projects mentors are not that active and hence they are not pushing > things > > forward till it is too late, and hence either way you will get delayed > > reports, only this time you can get more delayed reports. > > > > I totally understand the point you are trying to make, but what I am > trying > > to say that time limits are not the problem, from what I saw it is either > > the problem of mentors, not being active, or podling developers are not > > active or even both, these are the real reasons and having delayed > reports > > are just one symptom. > > I'll agree, but what I would like to see is that incubator taking a > greater role in identifying inactive mentors and inactive podlings and > taking corrective action. Note: that includes me both in (a) needing > to take a greater role and (b) as an inactive mentor for at least one > PPMC. > > To be fair: this month's incubator report demonstrates an intent to do > exactly that. Please don't interpret what I am saying as "bad > incubator: change", please interpret it as "good incubator: more!". > No worries I totally understand you Sam :) > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
