Hi Upayavira,
-----Original Message----- From: Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:17 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus) >Chris, > >What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the >problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a >common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us >all to accept. No problem. I've articulated those for a while now, they were the original parts of my proposal [1]. See the headings there that being with: * Podlings are themselves distinct communities * Podlings are more and more able to pick up on the basic principles of the Incubator documentation; its legal oversight and its processes * Mentors encourage their podlings to operate autonomously These are a combination of observations (based on problems), and problems themselves, which have led to divergence in many of the core Incubator issues. The way I see it, many of the things that led me to write [1] still exist. And, many of the small steps that we took to unhinge some of the problems that were documented in [1] and the thread referenced in [1], such as "Joe's experiment" (to allow PPMC members VOTEs to matter more on releases), and such as steps that we've taken to reduce the requirement for 3 +1s from IPMC members to VOTE in a new PPMC member. Those are related to self governance, and the recognition that podlings themselves should not have to be so as dependent on folks from the IPMC, because it's a "wild west". > > >So, my question to you is are you able/willing to articulate the >problems do you see the incubator as having, that need to be solved? >That is, without (yet) suggesting how it should be fixed? Yes, I've articulated them for a while now. :) What I appreciated from Niall, and anyone that reads my proposal, are specific comments, backed with data, about the proposal itself. Sure it has a plan of action (as any good proposal should), but it has problems, and observations, that lead to that plan of action, too. > >I'd be very curious to hear how you see it. Thank you for kindly considering my opinion Upayavira. I respect and appreciate yours as well. Cheers, Chris [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
