The typical escalation path is either board@ or board-private@ assuming private messages to the chair are ineffective. Most of the time, for most of our projects, this has worked well enough.
The real issue for the IPMC boils down to the judgement call of whether the standard escalation procedures are working to everyone's satisfaction, or are we now able to recognize a clear need for an independent, neutral contact point. All I can say is that I've seen this debated in the past while seemingly always failing to capture the core decision that really needs to be made. I trust this time round we'll stay focus on the practical issues and ignore our gut feelings about artificiality or other semantic concerns. When you task someone to serve in this capacity, you don't necessarily wind up in a better place than when you started, because separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of new information gathered requires patience and skill. It's not easy to remain unbiased and objective and it can be emotionally draining and seemingly unrewarding, especially if it becomes a backdoor for leveling misconduct charges against each other. But you have to have faith that there will be an upside to doing the outreach necessary to help us understand our true impact on these podlings. Reasonable people can disagree about the time and the place for an ombudsman, but I hope our willingness to grow and learn affords us some room for having some purposeful faith in where this could lead in our quest to do a better job at this. If this isn't the time or the place, what would be? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2013, at 1:16 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Since I realize that most of you can't be >> bothered to look at the wiki page I created ;-), >> I'll go ahead and post the current content >> here for commentary. I hope the bulk of it >> is non-controversial, though some of it may >> not belong on the page... > > In general, I like it very much and I think it should > be prominently displayed on Incubator web someplace. > > One comment thought: >> 5. Podlings have the right to express private concerns about anything >> related >> to their incubation to the Incubator Ombudsman <ombudsman@incubator>, >> who will handle such communications as if they were sent anonymously. > > For as long as there was a talk about Ombudsman the very > idea of something like that in ASF has rubbed me the wrong > way. The best way I can explain it is that it feels very artificial > and asymmetric: suppose you are a committer on project "foo" > and you feel like what's going on in the project is counterproductive > to the ASF's charter. What's your recourse? Why isn't it the > same for the poddling? > > Thanks, > Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
