I think bringing shepherds comments here is good and don't want to change that (consider this the equivalent of discussing in the board meeting). By calling for brief comments in the report I'm just hoping to set a reminder for following shepherds. Consider this roughly equivalent to action items follow-ups.
Any other solution that achieves similar results would be fine. Ross On Jul 26, 2012 9:30 PM, "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My basic point here is to not worry too much about some IPMC people > > not performing reviews, as long as you have ample numbers in the first > > place. > > I'm mostly worried about the "ample numbers" being close to zero at > times. It's been getting better lately, but there's a long history of > podlings with major issues receiving little or no attention from the > IPMC even though such issues were being reported quarter after > quarter. > > > I realize that you don't have nine dedicated Directors :-P, but > > hopefully in time, you'll build a good set of people interested in > > performing overall reviews. > > Agreed. Ultimately I'd like to see the IPMC act more as a larger > community on issues like this, but despite good recent progress we're > not quite there yet. The shepherd model is one step towards getting > more IPMC members than just the mentors to pay attention at what's > going on in a podling. > > > (and just thought: you could actually get some of those reviews from > > Directors who are IPMC members; they're gonna read it eventually, so > > why not a bit early and provide a review?) > > All directors who are also IPMC members (or want to be :-) are of > course welcome to participate in the pre-submission reviews like some > already do (thanks, Ross!), though as discussed earlier this year the > board shouldn't really have to pick up the slack of the IPMC. > > > Commentary may be a bit tricky. For the Board, we place the feedback > > directly into the agenda (which gets stripped for the final minutes). > > Not sure what you'd like to do here. > > So far I've personally preferred to bring direct feedback and comments > back to general@ in order to strike up proper conversations with the > podlings (wiki or svn is a cumbersome place for that). As an > alternative in June Ross added some commentary directly to the report, > which is more in line with the process used by the board. For now I'd > be happy to try out different approaches to see which once work best > for all interested parties; the podlings, the rest of the IPMC, and > the ASF board. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
