On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that >> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a >> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes >> the problem to the board, which is IMO not what they >> should be having to deal with. > > I agree. This proposal in its current form solves on problem (IPMC > inefficiencies) and moves another the problem (inadequate mentoring),
No. The existing problem remains the revised problem. Any solution applicable to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfunctional PMC, Incubating. Except that the board is likely to be much less tolerant and much quicker to disband a failed effort that the motley band of IPMC has been. The problem set is identical, and this proposal does not address it any better or worse than the current committee structure. The problem varies in one dimension only; in the IPMC, the general@ comes to the rescue of absent mentors. That won't be possible in the revised structure without the rescuers signing up and committing to mentor the Project, Incubating as PMC members. And since there are many complaints about insufficient commitment, this is probably not a bad thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
