On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as >> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all >> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to >> ComDev." > > Ross, I'm not a candidate. But I certainly don't believe that.
That's good to hear. I'm desperately trying to catch up with all this. It is currently 2:48 AM and I should be in bed. > Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and > the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the > board. That would be fine except that the board is not a subtle instrument of mentoring. It's a sledgehammer. The board will not, I assume, spend time working with incubating projects to help them resolve their issues. They will say "go sort it out or get out". The projects then turn to where? I believe there are huge cracks in this proposal and it seems to me that it will fall to ComDev (via the board) to close the gaps. Maybe this is a good thing. But I as chair of that ComDev I want to fully understand what is expected of our small committee. I don't like that nobody has asked ComDev if it wants to change. It is assumed that ComDev will take the documentation. When this was first raised by Greg I raised concerns. Specifically ComDev was created to manage GSoC and other such activities. As part of this it is supposed to direct people to the right place. It is where newcomers come to find the right committee list, the right documentation pages or the right mentor. It is not supposed to be the fountain of all knowledge. We are a *very* long way from being where I want us to be in this respect. I don't like it that the supporters of this proposal are in denial about the need for support for failing podlings. If it is not denial, if the intention is that failing podlings will be culled then fine, state it up-front so we know the issue has been considered (Bill, I recognise, you did so in this mail, but you are not a candidate). > Incubator is a many-too-layered onion today, and it > seems people keep trying to wrap Chris's proposal in more layers of > Onion, because it is insufficiently complex to result in 100 people > arguing with one another for days on end. I don't know who "people" are, but like Chris you seem to be attributing "peoples" opinions to me. Show me where I have said we need the IPMC? Show me where I have said I don't support this proposal? Show me where I have said we need more layers? All I have said, repeatedly in a number of different ways, is that the plan is incomplete and I am concerned that it will be ComDev that has to pick up the pieces because this proposal removes all other possible support channels when the VP + mentors channel fails. I just want someone to address *my* issue as ComDev chair directly. Benson came closest quite some mails ago when he highlighted that the proposal means we need to vet mentors more, but I see nothing in the proposal that covers this. Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
