Alan, I get that. I'm supposed to be more the admin support here than the autocrat. I'm trying to help the IPMC find a consensus position -- within the parameters of the IPMC's mission. I have no problem with that position being retirement. I am prepared for it to be a brief extension, and I am completely opposed to six months of carte blanche.
--benson On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > Benson, > > I will remind the IPMC that seven months ago the specter of retirement was > raised. A lengthy discussion ensued. Consensus was garnered. We even added > committers with the hopes of infusing new energy into the project. > > Sometimes, you just can't get ultimate consensus on retirement and you have > to resolve issues with a vote. By *all* of the PPMC members admission, they > have no time to work on this project. Eric simply wanted to wait a while and > hope for some miracle to happen. > > If Eric and other PPMC members had the time to do the work, we wouldn't be > where we are today. > > > > Regards, > Alan > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> One interesting point about consensus decision-making process is the >> need to define the starting point. The process assumes that there is a >> clear 'status quo', and that a consensus is required to change it. >> This may not always be the appropriate way to think about retiring a >> podling, but it's clearly the way we're thinking about this one. >> >> Does anyone else feel that this could have benefitted from a [DISCUSS] >> before the [VOTE]. >> >> At the bottom line, if there are new mentors to be fully responsible, >> I think it's reasonable to continue; however, I don't want to have >> exactly the same conversation in N months. Would the new mentors like >> to propose a time limit, and is the group willing to subscribe to the >> notion that, if after that time, the new mentors have the same report >> as the old mentors, we're at the end? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Bernd Fondermann >> <bernd.fonderm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I'd hope we can demonstrate finding consensus rather than using the vote to >>>> resolve this. >>>> >>>> I still think forced retirement doesn't seem the right thing in this case >>>> so my -1 stands. In the other thread Alan now seems open to giving them >>>> another try, i've offered to help with that (any other offers of help?), >>>> what have we got to lose with trying that? >>> >>> "forced"? No, not really. Chukwa reported low activity and discussions >>> about closing down for months to the IPMC. >>> >>> Only because the IPMC as a whole is getting involved only *now* >>> doesn't make it more likely for the project to change. >>> >>> However, if the IPMC reaches consensus to continue Chukwa, I'm in. >>> What will happen is that attention falls back to chukwa-dev and we're >>> where we were one week ago. >>> >>> But again, I'm ready to continue. >>> >>> Bernd >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
