On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> >> Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling >> be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and >> responsibility they are missing today. You don't need to blow away the IPMC >> to fix this problem. > > So, let me get this straight. > > "Make incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they are > missing today?" > > Sounds a ton like my existing proposal. With some kitchen sink (the IPMC) > added in. > > If incoming projects have the authority and responsibility that they lack > have today, there is > no IPMC.
Why? The IPMC's role never should have been about approving membership or releases in the podling. It should be about making sure they are getting sufficient help from the ASF in the form of mentors, legal advice, best practices, community building, etc. Yes, every project needs that but not to the degree a project new to the ASF does. If the mentors go missing or have a situation change where they need to bow out then having an IPMC there to help find new mentors is a much better situation then them simply reporting they are short on mentors to the board. The basic difference here between what you have suggested and what I'm saying is that the VP, Incubator is not an individual trying to do that but a team. It also means that podlings are still not quite full-fledged TLPs but darn close in that the IPMC still may want reports solely so they can determine if any assistance is needed. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
